GoldenDragonSoc, what would the numbers be under PPP calculations? 😀
GoldenDragonActually, the P-40 Warhawk was the face of the USAAF to the general public for much of the war because of the movies and media attention given to the Flying Tigers. In fact, the P-40 is often depicted at the quintessential WWII era American fighter even today, like in the “Sky Captain” movie.
It was only after the war did historians and aviation people began debunking the myth that the P-40 was an exceptionally great plane. They might have gone overboard because it took a lot to convince people who’ve seen John Wayne and his Flying Tigers in P-40s. The P-40 was very useful in the first part of war but was overmatched in the air superiority role in Europe.
Unlike P-40 which had more than its share of fame and supporters, the F2A Buffalo was the most maligned fighter in American history from WWII to the present. But anyone who actually looks at the Buffalo overall record would be shocked at the number of kills the plane piled up under a few good men.
GoldenDragonMy pet peeve.
Myth: The Brewster Buffalo was a horrible fighter
While the Buffalo did perform poorly early in the Pacific War and was withdrawn from the frontline, the overall combat record of this pudgy little fighter was actually phenomenal.
Forty-three Buffaloes were flown by the Finnish LLv24 Squadron. The kill ratio of the buffalo versus Soviet planes under the Finns is estimated at around 30 to one! (1) No fewer than 12 Finns became aces in Buffalos.
————————
Notes:
(1) National Museum of Naval Aviation
http://broadcast.illuminatedtech.com/display/story.cfm?bp=131&sid=8445
“Unlike the Navy and Marine Corps experience with the Buffalo, which was marginal at best, the Finns had great success with it, achieving better than a 30:1 against the Soviet Air Force during World War II. The aircraft now at the Museum was flown by one of Finland’s top aces, Lieutenant Lauri Pekuri, who had over 18.5 kills, 8 of them in this machine. “
GoldenDragonThese 20 are going to Africa. They’re are probably not going to one country but several. Usually, the exporting arm, CATIC, would get its foreign orders and task firms – in this case – Xi’an of AVIC I to fill those orders. So the 20 plane order that Xi’an got was most likely from CATIC or another Chinese exporting agency.
If you google for the K-8 deals over the years, you’ll see that they were ordered in much the same way.
The MA60 is an interesting plane. It’s developed from the Y-7 which is in itself developed from the An-24 but is fitted with Pratt & Whitney turboprops and Rockwell avionics. Its main target market is in the Chinese western provinces with the smaller, less developed airports and lower maintenance. So it would fit in well with smaller airlines and government agencies/air services in parts of Africa and Asia.
The price is extremely cheap for a 60-seater that has reliable western engines and avionics, 20 aircraft for $242m or $12m per plane
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2004/12/1103624095.html
China gets 20 aircraft overseas order
December 21, 2004A Chinese aircraft maker has sealed a deal to sell 20 locally designed turboprop passenger aircraft to overseas buyers for 2 billion yuan (USD$242 million), state media said on Tuesday.
Xian Aircraft Company and China National Aero-Technology Import and Export had agreed to sell the 60 seater MA60 planes, the China Daily said, without giving details of the would-be buyers.
The paper cited industry sources as saying the aircraft, which can fly up to 504 kilometres per hour and cover a distance of 1,600 kilometres with a full load, would be exported to Africa.
China hoped to sell more MA60 aircraft — which have operated in the domestic market since April 2002 — to countries in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America, the overseas edition of the People’s Daily added.
Xian Aircraft Company aimed to sell at least 300 such planes to overseas customers by 2020, according to the China Daily.
The company also makes components for Boeing and Airbus.
China, a longtime producer of military and small propeller aircraft, is now trying to move up the value chain.
It is developing a regional jet with help from the likes of Honeywell, Rockwell Collins and General Electric, and last year Brazil’s Embraer opened a factory in China.
(Reuters)
GoldenDragonHere you state explicitly that China had access F-16s from Pakistan. And not in Pakistan
Here you state explicitly that China had access F-16s from Pakistan. And not in Pakistan
Quote:
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,715
GoldenDragon
Fly GoldenDragon Airlines…
The F-16 Falcon, China had access since the 1980s from Pakistan. It was never reverse-engineered.
I’m glad you’ve studied the bulk of my work over the years 🙂
Let me explain to you, as the original author, what I said in that post: “the F-16 is from Pakistan and China had access to it. It was never reverse-engineered. “
Now, where did I say China received or was gifted a F-16 from pakistan? Having “access” to something is a term I use when the owner is another.
And “never reverse-engineered” is the main point of that particular statement, anyways. “Never reverse-engineered” would obviously not be the case if I thought China had the F-16 dis-assembled in the PRC and its parts copied.
So it’s rather silly to play semantics based on my use of preposition (“from”). If you insist on knowing better on the point that I, myself, was making then continue on. I’m personally fascinated by mindreaders and psychics 😀
GoldenDragonNumber 8 and the Chinese aviation market. If China buys 60 7″8″7s, it would give Boeing a lease on future growth.
The designation number might be one reason why the J-8II is so hard for China to give up 😀
7E7, if renamed, wishes China luck
Airliner designation of 787 likely, report hints.
SEATTLE — Boeing has not yet decided whether to stick with tradition and assign a 700-series number to its 7E7 Dreamliner aircraft, a spokeswoman for the 7E7 program said Wednesday.
“Whether we keep the ‘E’ or choose a number is still being discussed,” said Yvonne Leach. “There are those who want to stick with the ‘E’ and those who want to go with a number.”
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer quoted company sources as saying the twinjet, scheduled to go into service in 2008, will be designated the 787. The report in Wednesday editions says the announcement is being delayed because Alan Mulally, president of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, wants to make the announcement when an expected order for 60 Dreamliners comes in from Chinese airlines.
The number eight is considered good luck in China, partly because in both the Mandarin and Cantonese dialects the number is pronounced much the same as the word to make money. License plates and telephone numbers ending in eight are in demand in China, weddings are planned around dates that include the number and the Olympic Games in Beijing are set to begin at 8 p.m. local time on Aug. 8, 2008 or 8-8-08.
For the time being the plane remains the 7E7, with the E standing for efficiency.
Boeing’s tradition of three-digit model numbers that start and end with a 7 goes back to the company’s first commercial jet, the 707, initially designated the Model 367-80 or Dash 80, in 1954.
— Associated Press
GoldenDragonNow when have I ever “boasted” about a F-16 going to China?
On the contrary, I’ve always stated that there is no evidence of China receiving a F-16 or a Lavi for J-10 project because the number of PAF F-16s and Israeli Lavis (there are only three) are small and easy to keeps tabs of. There is no evidence that either one went to China.
Now as far as Chinese access to the F-16s in Pakistan, that is another matter. There are numberous reports of Chinese pilots, including the FC-1’s lead test pilot, who said commented on the F-16 against the other types he flown. There is no man-machine interface quite like the F-16 and is the standard that China is attempting to match.
Now, were/are there Chinese engineers, as well as pilots, looking over PAF F-16s in Pakistan? Most certainly. Just as there were probably Chinese engineers looking at American planes in Iran. But was a F-16 (or F-14 or F-4) ever dis-assembled and sent to China so it could be studied and its every parts reproduced?
No evidence at all. Otherwise, you’d probably see a reproduction of the F-16 by today. I don’t see any Chinese-made F-16s in the PLAAF or alongside American ones in the PAF.
GoldenDragonNonono… Northen Fleet. Qingdao is where i should be going for those. And don’t mention the local beer, because i already KNOW i should be going 😉
Comrade Hu! You are right. You know the PLANAF even better than I, the SH-5s are in Qingdao. For some reason I was thinking Hainan.
Yes, good beer, it came from the Germans as did some of the architecture around the city.
You are one Euro who knows his Asian stuff. For that I will accept your premise on the F-2, Comrade.
GoldenDragonUhhh… similar looks don’t mean similar design. Just look at the jet nozzles of the F-101 or XF-88 (both McDonnel designs as the Phantom) and you might guess the Phantom has got it’s rear fuselage from those – but no! In stead, the F-4 was based on the F3H Demon, with two engines in stead of one.
Actually, the rear of the F-101 looked very different with the high tailplanes. The setting of the cockpit and the nose of the F3H Demon certainly show the lines from which the F-4 came about.
I do agree that the similar looks don’t mean copied from the same design. But if Flex is pressing for the F-2’s relations to the Jaguar then it is also reasonable to look at the Jaguar’s likeness to the F-4.
The downward canted tailplanes of the F-4 was unique during its time and came before the Jaguar’s.
Here another bit of Asian engineering. Still want to see one.
The SH-5 is a pretty rare bird alright. Found only in the subtropical climes of the South China Seas 😀
GoldenDragonYou have any pictures of it, Comrade Hu? 😀
GoldenDragonSo, as of my knowledge, most of them are SK versions which less capable than SMK.
regards,
John
Yes, they are less capable. The Su-27SM/SMK was developed specifically to enhance the old SKs (which incidentally, China has not agreed to yet, though some think this will be the standard of the last 100 vehicles on the 200-plane contract.)
Remember, the SKs have old dial gauges, is not compatible with R-77 or any ARH bvr and no ability to deliver A2G ordinance. This is not a modern multirole plane.
In fact, since the J-8 has already launched the SD-10 (and the PL-12, if that is a separate missile,) the PLAAF SK is even inferior to the J-8II in bvr by not having an ARH MRAAM.
This is why there are many reports of SAC’s push towards the J-11B which would have a glass cokpit, A2G weapons and the ability to fire the PL-12 (there are several photos of J-11 models at SAC which have PGM and non-R-27 MRAAM mockups – look through older segments of this thread for those picts.)
GoldenDragonI doubt it. Back in the early 1960s, the PLAAF’s assets were still focused almost exclusively at Taiwan. I’ve never ever came across any reliable info on such clashes anyway, whereas the PRC side of the story of PLAAF vs RoCAF clashes during the 1950s and 1960s are very well documented and pretty easy to find.
I’m not even sure a MiG-17 with a combat load could even takeoff from the Tibetan Plateau. China’s assets even today are nearly focused exclusively on Taiwan.
GoldenDragonWell, I just a little bit confused. Recently, China stopped Su-27 kits from Russia, I supposed that wss for the Su-27 which has been built around 80 aircrafts. This was not to be the same with J-11, right?
So, how many J-11s were built beside those 80 until now?
John, all J-11s built in China should have come from those 95 kits. Alhough the proportion of Russian components would vary over the years, with the earliest having the highest percentage of Russian content..
There is some confusion as to how many J-11s were built. The lowest recent figure I saw was 49 which means there is another 46 kits unassembled.
There are a few who believe that there are actually more than 95 J-11s built which means that there are planes with all chinese components except for the engines. Crobato had some theories on squadron and bort numbers which shows more than 95 J-11s. Perhaps he could explain again here.
On the conservative side, I would put the number between 60 J-11s. Let’s not forget that there were about 40 Su-27SK single seaters delivered fully assembled to China in the 1990s. These are externally identical to the J-11. So single-seat Flankers we see in China would number around 100.
There are 40 UBKs and about 100 MKKs for the two-seat Flankers.
GoldenDragonOh, is it the “172” design that has been doing the rounds on the Internet?
Could be but I’m not sure if that particular artist’s interpretation is a 051C or an imaginary followon to the 052C.
GoldenDragonCheck out the new AFM. Chengdu officials is saying that a two-seater is now planned for the FC-1 and is due by 2006/2007.
I recalled that the first mention of the two-seater was from the PAF and that is where the push for the two-seater comes from. There was never any hint of a FC-1 two-seater from Chinese official until now.
So for Chengdu officials at Zhuhai to say it is looking to develop the twin-seat within the next several years is a major development. Earlier, Guizhou had hoped that the FTC-2000 could be the FC-1’s trainer.
If they are already planning the two-seater, the current single-seat version is developing very fast.
Sign In
