Trident said:
Regarding engines, it would also be interesting to know whether China ever considered or Ukraine pushed for twin D-18Ts. Almost exactly the same total engine weight and thrust as four D-30KPs - it would have made the Y-20 pretty competitive out of the box too and obviously suited Antonov/Ukraine pretty well. Though at the expense of commonality with China's existing Il-76 fleet and requiring a more complex wing design to accommodate a later switch to four smaller indigenous turbofans - both rather important considerations.

Interestingly enough

http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php?topic=2056.msg207526#msg207526

Though I cannot vouch for the validity of the source.
 
Trident said:
As you correctly point out, compared to the civilian PW2000 and other *high-bypass ratio* turbofans, the F117 reverser is unique in that it deflects both core and bypass jets. So far so good, but have you thought a little bit about how those clam-shell reversers on the D-30 work? Hint, they do *exactly* the same thing
No they don't. C-17's cascades reverser redirects the thrust 360 degree around the engine, while D-30's thrust reverser is a less-efficient bucket type that redirects thrust left and right. This is why all the modern commercial jet engines have a 360 degree cascade thrust reversers.

il76tdrussianskyphotos-22.jpg

D-30's ancient, less efficient thrust reverser.

4632572540_885bc3b271.jpg

787's modern cascades thrust reverser.

- The flap system is clearly large and complex
Not as large and complex as the C-17's.

SlowMan said:
Why do you think the nearby country would grant Chinese the permission to land?
Furthermore, not being able to land near the frontline means a long ground logistic line and delays.

This does not resolve the issue of not being able to land cargo jets closer to frontline.
Irrelevant. According to established *facts*, your analysis of the Y-20's STOL capability has been *proven* to be completely wrong, so these arguments are founded on fatally flawed assumptions.
It is relevant since Y-20 doesn't have the STOL capability of C-17 or A400M, thereby greatly limiting the number of spots where it could land. This changes the entire logistics strategy and hampers China's ability to wage a US-style war far away from its border.
 
SlowMan said:
No they don't. C-17's cascades reverser redirects the thrust 360 degree around the engine, while D-30's thrust reverser is a less-efficient bucket type that redirects thrust left and right. This is why all the modern commercial jet engines have a 360 degree cascade thrust reversers.
Actually, bucket type reversers have the advantage of maintaining nozzle geometry when deployed, so they are pretty efficient - the real reason for cascades is as I stated.
SlowMan said:
Not as large and complex as the C-17's.
Not sure how you define large (relative to the aircraft's size, which is the only relevant measure here, the Y-20's may well be larger), but there's no way anybody in their right mind could describe a single slotted system as being more complex than a full-span tripple-slotted system.

SlowMan said:
It is relevant since Y-20 doesn't have the STOL capability of C-17 or A400M, thereby greatly limiting the number of spots where it could land. This changes the entire logistics strategy and hampers China's ability to wage a US-style war far away from its border.
It is not relevant, since all *objective* indications are that your premise (relative lack of STOL on the Y-20) is likely to be nonsense.
 
SlowMan said:
SlowMan said:
Why do you think the nearby country would grant Chinese the permission to land?
Furthermore, not being able to land near the frontline means a long ground logistic line and delays.

This does not resolve the issue of not being able to land cargo jets closer to frontline.
Irrelevant. According to established *facts*, your analysis of the Y-20's STOL capability has been *proven* to be completely wrong, so these arguments are founded on fatally flawed assumptions.
It is relevant since Y-20 doesn't have the STOL capability of C-17 or A400M, thereby greatly limiting the number of spots where it could land. This changes the entire logistics strategy and hampers China's ability to wage a US-style war far away from its border.


I'm still waiting to see what you're basing the lack of STOL capability on. The high lift devices are not very different to either C-17 or A400M or Il-76 for that matter, all of which have STOL capability and the ability to land on unprepared airfields, nor is there any indication that the landing gear is not designed for such operations.


Considering the PLAAF have operated Il-76s for years and would have gotten used to its ability to operate off rough airfields I see no reason why they would downgrade themselves.
The lack of visual evidence to support the notion that Y-20 cannot do STOL or use unprepared airfields, combined with how illogical such a decision would be on the PLAAF who would've issued the requirements, makes me think that the supposed lack of abilities is more what you wish to be true.
 
The attitude of "if its not the C-17 its useless" is puzzling. Il-76 can operate from reasonably short , unprepared strips, I imagine Y-20 is similar. Probably C-17 is *more* STOL. What is the relevance to China?
 
Matej said:
Regarding the engines - there is also one theoretical possibility to use some kind of military derivate of CJ1000A, but this engine is far away from even being completed in prototype form.
According to official schedule core engine test of CJ-1000A is to begin in 2014, and final product wont be delivered until 2020, WS-20 project on the other hand with a mature WS-10A(CFM56) core engine is less risky, it's scheduled to get airworthiness certification by 2016.
 
Y-20 gives air power a push


(Source: China Daily) 2013-01-28


  The successful maiden flight of the Y-20, China’s first domestically developed heavy air freighter, marks a step in the country’s goal of building a strategic air power, according to military experts and observers.


  "A genuine strategic air power must possess a strong power projection capability, which is highly reliant on large aircraft, namely a strategic air freighter and a strategic bomber," Wang Yanan, deputy editor-in-chief at Aerospace Knowledge magazine and a military analyst, said.


  "The long-range power projection capability of the Chinese air force still lags behind. But the Y-20 means we have made strides toward building a strategic air power."


  He said the breakthrough in the technology of large military aircraft will substantially accelerate the development of China’s aviation industry and boost the drive to modernize the People’s Liberation Army.


  On Saturday, China conducted a test flight of the Y-20, a large, multi-function air freighter that can perform various long-distance transportation tasks.


  "The successful maiden flight of the Y-20 is important in promoting China’s economic and national defense buildup, as well as improving its emergency response and humanitarian aid abilities," the Ministry of National Defense said on its website on Saturday, adding that more experiments and test flights will be scheduled.


  The official codename of the aircraft is Kunpeng, named after a legendary bird in Chinese mythology that can fly thousands of kilometers.


  The jumbo air freighter is believed to have been developed by Xi’an Aircraft Industry, a subsidiary of Aviation Industry Corp of China, the major military aircraft manufacturer.


  Large strategic air freighters in active service around the world include the Antonov An-225, the Ilyushin Il-76 and the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III.


  The Y-20, with a crew of three, has a maximum payload of 66 metric tons and a maximum takeoff weight of more than 200 tons, China Youth Daily quoted military sources as saying. The high payload means the aircraft can fly the heaviest tank of the PLA — the 58-ton Type-99A2.


  The length of the Y-20 is 47 meters and its wingspan is 50 meters, the report said.


  An important addition


  Sources said the aircraft began to be developed in the early 1990s. In 2006 it was listed in a national mid- and long-term technological development plan. In 2009, a senior executive at the Aviation Industry Corp of China told Chinese media the design of a "200-ton military aircraft" had been completed and production of prototypes had begun.


  Photos of the Y-20 began to circulate on Chinese military websites on Dec 24, leading to speculation that the air freighter would soon conduct its first test flight.


  Three days later, Yang Yujun, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry, confirmed at a news conference that China is "developing a large transport aircraft on our own to improve the capability of air transport".


  Once in service, the Y-20 will significantly strengthen the PLA’s long-range transport capability, which has been plagued for many years by the absence of a domestically developed strategic air freighter.


  The PLA air force now has a transport fleet that mainly consists of the Y-7, the Y-8 and their variants.


  The Y-7 is designed and made based on the Soviet-designed Antonov An-24 series, and the Y-8 is based on the Antonov An-12. Both have relatively light payloads and cannot carry heavy-duty armored vehicles and tanks.


  There is also an unknown but presumably small number of Ilyushin Il-76 large air freighters in the air force, enabling the PLA to conduct strategic transport and disaster-relief missions.


  In 2008, large transport aircraft from the PLA air force took part in rescue and relief missions after a devastating earthquake in Southwest China. Three years later, the air force also sent four Ilyushin Il-76s to strife-torn Libya to rescue stranded Chinese citizens.


  The missions have proven the importance of long-range aircraft and also exposed the embarrassing fact that China still lacks enough strategic air freighters, military experts said.


  "The Ilyushin Il-76 was developed by the former Soviet Union in the 1970s and has largely lagged behind in terms of technology and functions, but China has no other choice but to continue buying it," Peng Yue, a military observer, wrote in Ta Kung Pao, a Hong Kong-based newspaper. He noted that the unreliable supply of Ilyushin Il-76 from Russia has constrained China’s production of a large, airborne early-warning and control system, which is installed on a modified Ilyushin IL-76 airframe.


  Compared with the Russian airplane, the Y-20 is much more technically advanced in almost all areas, but due to the comparatively conservative aerodynamic design and the lack of a domestically developed engine, it still cannot rival the US’ Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, experts said.


  "The United States Air Force has more than 350 large air freighters with a minimum payload of 50 tons, while the Russian Air Force has 368 strategic air freighters. I think the biggest gap between the PLA and them in terms of conventional arsenal lies in the strategic transport capability," Peng said.


  He said the Y-20 will not only improve the Chinese military’s power projection and rapid deployment capabilities but also provide a reliable platform for domestically developed early warning and control, aerial refueling, and anti-submarine aircraft.


  "The strategic importance of the Y-20 is even bigger than the J-20 stealth fighter jet and the aircraft carrier," he said.


  Carrying a payload of up to 55 tons, the Y-20 is able of flying to destinations 4,500 km away from China, such as Guam in the western Pacific Ocean or Egypt, and if accompanied by a tanker aircraft it can even fly 9,600 km to Angola in southern Africa or Sydney in Australia, military analysts said.


  "Our air force needs at least 100 strategic air freighters such as the Y-20 because transporting a brigade combat group alone needs 80 to 100 large air freighters," Wang at Aerospace Knowledge said. "If the PLA air force has 300 Y-20s, then its strategic transport capability will compete with that of the US air force."


  Opportunities abound


  In addition to its military implications, the Y-20 will bring many other benefits to China, said Liang Fang, a professor of strategy at the PLA National Defense University.


  "Along with the expansion of our national interest, the heavy air freighters will ensure that we are able to safeguard our interests overseas," she said. "With them, we can transport our people or large equipment to farther destinations and retrieve them."


  Du Wenlong, a senior researcher for the PLA Academy of Military Sciences, said: "The development of heavy transport aircraft, which is a cutting-edge equipment featuring advanced technology, will inject momentum to many related fields such as material science, engine research and manufacturing sectors, thus eventually upgrading the entire aviation industry of China."


  Chinese military fans are also excited about the test flight of the Y-20.


  "Good news has come again and again over the past two months. First we heard about the test flight of the J-31 stealth fighter jet, then the landing and takeoff of the J-15 on our aircraft carrier, and now we embrace the birth of the Y-20," said Qu Renming, a white-collar worker in Beijing. "The only concern for military fans is when can the Y-20 use our domestically developed engine and enter into service."


  Wang added: "I think the test flights and other experiments with the Y-20 will last at least two years. And after the tests are finished, at least 10 aircraft will be manufactured each year."


Editor:Ouyang Dongmei




http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/pla-daily-commentary/2013-01/28/content_5197556.htm






100 planes at 10 per year is going to tie up their production capacity for 10 more years after it comes in service.





Trident said:
wuguanhui said:
Trident said:
Another pretty funny aspect is the suggestion I read on a Russian forum, that Russia should purchase a handful, copy it and put it into production with PS-90s - sort of karma coming back for the J-11B ;)
lol ;D

Xi'an would be flattered, I'm sure. Can I ask where you read this?
Paralay's forum. The comment was made in jest, obviously, but I thought the irony of it was priceless :)


Cheers
 
Blitzo said:
I'm still waiting to see what you're basing the lack of STOL capability on.
You already saw it.

The high lift devices are not very different to either C-17 or A400M
A400M is a turboprop so a different design rule applies.

The very fact that EADS chose the turboprop to meet the STOL requirement shows that Y-20 isn't bound to the NATO STOL requirement.

PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Probably C-17 is *more* STOL. What is the relevance to China?
It restricts China's wartime logistics option. In peace time it doesn't matter much.
 
SlowMan said:
Blitzo said:
I'm still waiting to see what you're basing the lack of STOL capability on.
You already saw it.


Trident and others have already quite convincingly rebutted your claims. If that's all you have then I think we can call it a day on this whole "no STOL capability" charade.

The high lift devices are not very different to either C-17 or A400M
A400M is a turboprop so a different design rule applies.


Yeah, and what about C-17?
 
Blitzo said:
SlowMan said:
Blitzo said:
I'm still waiting to see what you're basing the lack of STOL capability on.
You already saw it.


Trident and others have already quite convincingly rebutted your claims. If that's all you have then I think we can call it a day on this whole "no STOL capability" charade.


He think so highly of his own bullshit that he would bullshit even when it was evident to everyone here that there was not the remotest possibility that he could have any access to the relevent facts. So I doubt he could ever blush when his bullshit is rebutted.
 
Blitzo said:
Trident and others have already quite convincingly rebutted your claims. If that's all you have then I think we can call it a day on this whole "no STOL capability" charade.
I quite responding and deleted my rebuttals to SlowMan weeks ago. How is it that everyone is just now figuring out what he's up to?
 
2IDSGT said:
Blitzo said:
Trident and others have already quite convincingly rebutted your claims. If that's all you have then I think we can call it a day on this whole "no STOL capability" charade.
I quite responding and deleted my rebuttals to SlowMan weeks ago. How is it that everyone is just now figuring out what he's up to?


I've only been frequenting the forum and this thread again in the last few days, though I'm a little embarrassed it's still taken me so long to catch on.
 
I mentioned it earlier in the thread.

I got involved in a tangled whirlwind of obfuscation where deflection and insults happened when the bluff was called, leading to a perfectly good thread on Taiwanese developments being locked.

As such, it is better to understand that this is just how it is, and leave it at that, and let common sense prevail.

I think it is pretty much established now that due to what we can see of theY-20 wing lift devices, undercarriage design, and thrust reversers, that the plane is definitely designed with STOL/unprepared strips in mind.
 
visitant said:
According to official schedule core engine test of CJ-1000A is to begin in 2014, and final product wont be delivered until 2020, WS-20 project on the other hand with a mature WS-10A(CFM56) core engine is less risky, it's scheduled to get airworthiness certification by 2016.

I know, I am speculating about CJ-1000A just as a long term (beyond 2030?) option. CJ-1000A is supposed to be kind of Chinese equivalent of modern fuel efficient engines (Leap-1C in this case) and... lets face the truth: D-30KP2 and WS-20 are now and for sure in 2030 will be far away from latest superefficient technology. So as a long term option it makes sense.
 
Since China has one of the largest fleets of B-737/747/757/767/777 and A-320/330/340/380, I wonder why they didn't just use a more modern commercial high bypass turbofan engine. The engines on those are at least competitive to PS-90, and much superior to D-30.
 
Plain and simple:

Arm embargo ... so to sell a modern Western high-performance turbofan for a Chinese military aircraft is simply a "no go" !

Deino
 
Yes, they can easily "lose" a couple of engines to study and reverse engineer, but to build a fleet of transports they'd have to strip out whole airlines.
 
A new image ...
 

Attachments

  • Y-20 on the ground.jpg
    Y-20 on the ground.jpg
    197 KB · Views: 215
I see night formation lights on the tail and fuselage sides. This suggest the prototype is very close to expected production standard configuation. The same applies to J-20.
 
Really?

Just because of formation lights? You don't think that sounds absolutely silly *insertsomething*? If i take a piece of wood and stick formation lights to it, surely that is close-to-production stealth fighter?
 
flanker said:
Really?

Just because of formation lights? You don't think that sounds absolutely silly? If i take a piece of wood and stick formation lights to it, surely that is close-to-production stealth fighter?

Inappropriate analogy. It's not a piece of wood. They don't need to test night formation lights. It works. It can only be there to facilitate night formation flying. If the plane is an early prototype configured to test only basic performances, then in its entire career it would likely never fly at night, ever. So why would it have night formation lights? The only explanation is the current prototype is not just configured to only test basic performances. Instead it is close enough to production standard that it is expected to actually be used for operational testing, doing things like dropping parachutists and low level load releases, or inflight refueling.
 
Folks, I would recommend to deny yourself expressions
like "silly" or "stupid" in the way you used it. It could too
easily be regarded as offensive .... :mad:


Finger-1.gif
 
latenlazy said:
Trident said:
Regarding engines, it would also be interesting to know whether China ever considered or Ukraine pushed for twin D-18Ts. Almost exactly the same total engine weight and thrust as four D-30KPs - it would have made the Y-20 pretty competitive out of the box too and obviously suited Antonov/Ukraine pretty well. Though at the expense of commonality with China's existing Il-76 fleet and requiring a more complex wing design to accommodate a later switch to four smaller indigenous turbofans - both rather important considerations.

Interestingly enough

http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php?topic=2056.msg207526#msg207526

Though I cannot vouch for the validity of the source.
Can you provide a synopsis of the info at that link? It requires a login to view.
 
Martin - I highly advice to register at CDF. It takes a minute and gives tons of new discoveries every month.
 
Basically, there was an article/report that Motor Sich of Ukraine is offering to sell China the design and patent of D-18T, possibly for the survival of the company.
 
乌克兰考虑将安-124的D-18T发动机专利卖给中国





环球网
2013年01月11日






据《兵器》杂志(2013年第2期)报道,乌克兰国内航空工业的不景气现状,影响到了世界上最大的发动机生产商之一乌克兰马达西奇股份有限公司,该公司表示,为生存考虑,可能把D-18T发动机设计专利卖给中国。

文章提到,2004年,该公司研发D-18T发动机,主要安装到安-124军用运输机及其货运型安-124-100飞机上。但安-124飞机的销售前景一片惨淡。马达西奇公司总经理巴古斯拉夫表示,为生存考虑,马达西奇公司可能把D-18T发动机设计专利卖给中国。

受美、欧、俄三方挤压,乌克兰航空工业产值只占世界的0.1%,居第90位。马达西奇股份有限公司主要为固定翼飞机和直升机生产发动机,被誉为“动力沙皇”。前苏联时期,马达西奇的发动机出口到90多个国家。2008年,马达西奇公司的出口额为1.6亿美元,占乌克兰国家航空产品出口额的50%,,位居乌克兰三大航空设备出口企业之首。

Jovian said:
Wow...

That, if true will be interesting. The question is, will the Chinese be interested?

Basically, the above article says that the Motor Sich company of Ukraine is ... offering (?) to sell the design/patent of the D-18T (high bypass turbofan engine) to China; for survival of the company. The D-18T is best know for its use on the An-124 (and also the An-225).

Looking at Wikipedia, the engine (designed by Ivchenko-Progress) is capable of producing ...

Maximum thrust: 23,430 Kgf; 51,655 pounds-force (229.77 kN)

I don't know much about high bypass turbofan engine, and at one point was wondering why didn't XAC select the D-18T but instead use the D-30K (?). Given the above article on the CJ-1000A, which indicate it is capable of 196kN trust, AS WELL AS the fact that transport like the C-17 uses Pratt & Whitney PW2000 (194kN?), would plane like the Y-20 need this kind of trust (and fuel consumption)? Is there a need for this engine in China?

Thanks for sharing the article!
 
Official Logo ?!
 

Attachments

  • Y-20 Logo.jpg
    Y-20 Logo.jpg
    62.6 KB · Views: 532
Blitzo said:
Trident and others have already quite convincingly rebutted your claims.
That's what you think, not necessarily what's the reality.

If that's all you have then I think we can call it a day on this whole "no STOL capability" charade.
IL-78 with D-30 engines have a minimum landing distance of 1500 m.
Y-20 won't be better than this, having the same thrust reverser.

Now, is 1500 m considered STOL? Hell no. End of story.

The high lift devices are not very different to either C-17 or A400M
The C-17 has a proportionally larger flaps and an advanced thrust reverser.
A400M is a turbo prop, so it has inherently higher lift than jet cargo planes since the prop-pushed air flows over the wing at higher speed, then the prop reveres blades to push air mass forward in "thrust reverse" mode. This is why A400M's landing distance is even shorter at 800 m.

Yeah, and what about C-17?
The C-17 features extensive STOL technology to keep the minimum landing distance at 1000 m.
 
I don't have a flight manual handy but Il-76 minimum landing run is 450m - 1000m according to Yefim Gordon's Aerofax "Ilyushin Il-76".


So, again, I see nothing to suggest Y-20 won't have a capability to operate in rough fields with smaller runways. Will it completely match the C-17 in capability, with a generation older engine? Probably not. Doesn't make it pointless though - how many people use Il-76s around the world?
 
Twin D-18s: Nice idea but plays hell with your one engine inoperative characteristics.

STOL - SlowMan has a point about thrust reversers but one ought to look (and I am speculating a bit here) about the other factors involved, mostly approach speed. Although the Y-20 has a very similar wing to the Il-76, it appears to have a proportionally bigger vertical tail and a much more powerful/fully redundant four-segment rudder - so if the limiting factor is minimum control speed with #1 or #4 failed the usable Vapp may be significantly slower.

And it almost certainly will have fully redundant power controls - the Il-76 has manual reversion.

And finally, the vital lesson of STOL that everyone forgets until it is too late is that it's great to get into a short unprepared field, but more important to be able to do it more than three times before you convert the runway to a muddy garbage tip.
 
LowObservable said:
Twin D-18s: Nice idea but plays hell with your one engine inoperative characteristics.

STOL - SlowMan has a point about thrust reversers but one ought to look (and I am speculating a bit here) about the other factors involved, mostly approach speed. Although the Y-20 has a very similar wing to the Il-76, it appears to have a proportionally bigger vertical tail and a much more powerful/fully redundant four-segment rudder - so if the limiting factor is minimum control speed with #1 or #4 failed the usable Vapp may be significantly slower.

And it almost certainly will have fully redundant power controls - the Il-76 has manual reversion.

And finally, the vital lesson of STOL that everyone forgets until it is too late is that it's great to get into a short unprepared field, but more important to be able to do it more than three times before you convert the runway to a muddy garbage tip.


Still no one else has commented on what seem to me to be remarkable similarity in the vertical stabilizer design between the Y-20 and the C-17, down to the shape of the fairing over the horizonal stabilizer trim and elevator actuation mechanism, to the degree high than, I suspect, could be easily accounted for merely by convergent evolution towards similar functional requirements.

Also, Y-20 seems to have lower wing sweep angle than the Il-76 based on some of the photos posted here. The photos also seem to show the Y-20 has also has a more complex triple slotted flap system to Il-76's single slotted flap system, suggesting a lower stalling speed at same weight compare to Il-76.

All in all, it seems to me Y-20 was designed with good short field performance as a very high priority.
 
chuck4 said:
Still no one else has commented on what seem to me to be remarkable similarity in the vertical stabilizer design between the Y-20 and the C-17, down to the shape of the fairing over the horizonal stabilizer trim and elevator actuation mechanism, to the degree high than, I suspect, could be easily accounted for merely by convergent evolution towards similar functional requirements.

Of course, those dastardly Chinese stole it from the C-17. And those dastardly MacDoug engineers stole it from:

yc-14_72-1873_1_of_9.jpg


Or maybe it was convergent evolution. ;)
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
I don't have a flight manual handy but Il-76 minimum landing run is 450m - 1000m according to Yefim Gordon's Aerofax "Ilyushin Il-76".

450 m is clearly non-sense. The IL-76 with PS-90 engines have a shorter landing distance than the D-30 equipped version.

Bill Walker said:
Of course, those dastardly Chinese stole it from the C-17. And those dastardly MacDoug engineers stole it from:

The YC-14 was a Boeing product.
The C-17 also is a Boeing product, even if an adopted child.

I don't see a problem.
 
Bill Walker said:
chuck4 said:
Still no one else has commented on what seem to me to be remarkable similarity in the vertical stabilizer design between the Y-20 and the C-17, down to the shape of the fairing over the horizonal stabilizer trim and elevator actuation mechanism, to the degree high than, I suspect, could be easily accounted for merely by convergent evolution towards similar functional requirements.

Of course, those dastardly Chinese stole it from the C-17. And those dastardly MacDoug engineers stole it from:

Or maybe it was convergent evolution. ;)

Actually McD got it from the YC-15.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUcxRhl3Txo
 
LowObservable said:
And finally, the vital lesson of STOL that everyone forgets until it is too late is that it's great to get into a short unprepared field, but more important to be able to do it more than three times before you convert the runway to a muddy garbage tip.
Very good point which only Bill appears to have picked up on...the triple bogey dual wheel mains would indicate the Y-20 may possess a better pavement/soft field rating than some of its twin bogey rivals, especially if they can figure out an onboard tyre inflation/deflation system.
 
:)
 

Attachments

  • Y-20 wing detail.jpg
    Y-20 wing detail.jpg
    49.2 KB · Views: 193
  • Y-20 wing detail 2.jpg
    Y-20 wing detail 2.jpg
    47 KB · Views: 186
  • Y-20 wing detail 3.jpg
    Y-20 wing detail 3.jpg
    49.1 KB · Views: 183
  • Y-20 wing detail 4.jpg
    Y-20 wing detail 4.jpg
    38 KB · Views: 26
Paint is on .. ;)
 

Attachments

  • Y-20 painted 2.3.13 - 01.jpg
    Y-20 painted 2.3.13 - 01.jpg
    51.1 KB · Views: 657

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom