I doubt that China "copies" aircraft such as a child would "copy" another doing a stunt.

As it has been stated before, Chine has liscences for those aircraft, so Russia is well-aware that China is building their aircraft with slight modifications.

I am sure that in some point in ourlives we have all bought a certain product and modified it to suite our own needs and called it our own. That is not copying, that is taking advantage of a product you bought.

Chine does the same, they modify their purchases aircraft to suite their needs, and calling these "copies" "pathetic" would be very out of place. The aircraft that China modifies are very powerful aircraft that were originally built to rival other original aircraft.

China is doing the smart thing, they are saving money while having advanced aircraft with advanced avionics.

Plus these aircraft have already been tested, so they are proved to do what they were designed for, to manuever in a combat cituation and just fly.

Shattered OUT...

Is this engineering chauvanism or political chauvanism? To get into the supersonic era the US used German engineers and ideas like the swept wing. To get to the moon they based their initial work on V-2 technology. And to shove a fork into those who really want to complain about the facts, the US continues to covertly purchase foreign aircraft and other military for evaluation to improve their own systems. Patriot was a dismal failure during Gulf War '91. Since they've bought advanced Russian SAM systems they've increased the reliability and performance of the Patriot system to a level which makes it merely acceptable against a ballistic missile. And even that's not really acceptable in a high threat environment if chemical warheads are involved.

Originally posted by MPJay
Is this engineering chauvanism or political chauvanism? To get into the supersonic era the US used German engineers and ideas like the swept wing. To get to the moon they based their initial work on V-2 technology. And to shove a fork into those who really want to complain about the facts, the US continues to covertly purchase foreign aircraft and other military for evaluation to improve their own systems. Patriot was a dismal failure during Gulf War '91. Since they've bought advanced Russian SAM systems they've increased the reliability and performance of the Patriot system to a level which makes it merely acceptable against a ballistic missile. And even that's not really acceptable in a high threat environment if chemical warheads are involved.

Oh plsase give links on related topics

I cant believe this. Even chinese trainers are copies .

1)Chuji Jiaolian-6 or Chujiao-6 (CJ-6)- Basic trainer
Westernised name: BT-6

copy of Soviet Yak-18A

2) JJ-5 Basic Jet Training Aircraft

copy of modified MiG-17bis fighter

3) JJ-7 Fighter-Trainer Aircraft

copy of Soviet MiG- 21U 'Mongol-A'

4) JL-9 Advanced Jet Training Aircraft

an improved JJ-7 with some aveonics borrowed from the FC-1

Do you know what I can't believe? Their mass produced every day products are copies of the things we have, O wait no they aren't they were made in China, now I understand.

Look lets not call them copies, and call them "aquired" aircraft, because technically that is what they are, China aquires these aircraft and makes it their own.

Shattered OUT...

The US takes foreign technology, figures out how it works, improves on it, then puts it onto their own airframes. China takes the airframes, copies them, and then rebuilds them exactly as they were. Now which seems more like copying?

Also that German flying wing has NOTHING to do with the B-2. The B-2 comes from Jack Northrop's Flying wings which were being built long before this last minute desperate attempt from the germans. Just because they look alike does not mean they are alike.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by roniii259]

Originally posted by roniii259
The US takes foreign technology, figures out how it works, improves on it, then puts it onto their own airframes. China takes the airframes, copies them, and then rebuilds them exactly as they were. Now which seems more like copying?

Also that German flying wing has NOTHING to do with the B-2. The B-2 comes from Jack Northrop's Flying wings which were being built long before this last minute desperate attempt from the germans. Just because they look alike does not mean they are alike.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by roniii259]

That Northrop was a counter to the success of the Nazi flying wing . In other words, it copied a superior design.

Come on guys. The aeronautics designers of many countries were smart guys. When you have smart guys in the hundreds, perhaps in the thousands you are bound to have people coming up with similar concepts.

Its a common principle of engineering solutions.

The difference has always been who has the most resources to take advantage of it.....Some just come to it later in the evolution is all.

As to China only ever copies. PLease...Some people could say Raptor is just an Eagle wrapped in stealthier skin.


I'm surprised. All you guys seem to know so much. Do any of you actually read or is print alien to you?

Originally posted by roniii259
The US takes foreign technology, figures out how it works, improves on it, then puts it onto their own airframes. China takes the airframes, copies them, and then rebuilds them exactly as they were. Now which seems more like copying?

[edit on 25-10-2004 by roniii259]

you think China does not take a good hard look at the planes it imports and than looks for ways to improve on them, or make them adaptable to indigenious technology?

Please, show some common sense.

Originally posted by roniii259
The US takes foreign technology, figures out how it works, improves on it, then puts it onto their own airframes. China takes the airframes, copies them, and then rebuilds them exactly as they were. Now which seems more like copying?

You mean which seems more like NOT copying? Because they both seem like copying to me...

China’s attempt of developing a new generation long-range bomber for both strategic and tactical roles can be traced back to the early 1970s. The first long-range bomber programme features four Rolls-Royce Spey turbofans under the wings, and a fuselage that generally looks like an enlarged H-6/Tu-16 Badger. The new bomber is said to be comparable in general performance to the U.S. B-47, but the technological and financial demands for developing such an aircraft was obviously not affordable to China at the time. Therefore it is not surprising that the Chinese government eventually cancelled the programme in its concept stage.


The mock of the failed 4-engine long-range bomber

In the late 1970s some efforts were made to radically modify the H-6 bomber to replace its two large turbojets with four much more efficient Rolls-Royce Spey Mk-512 turbofans, which were originally designed for civil aircraft. The resulting H-6I made its first fly in 1978. The PLAAF was hoping to upgrade all of its H-6 fleet with similar modifications, but this idea later died a justified death. As a temporary alternative, all H-6s in service with the PLAAF were upgraded with advanced navigation and ECM systems in the 1980s.

As the Taiwan issue was getting critical in the mid-1990s, once again the PLAAF began to look a successor to the H-6 bomber for long-range strike missions. China reportedly approached Russia to purchase Tu-22M3 ‘Backfire’ medium bombers but was rejected due to the security concerns by the Russian government. This has resulted in another serious delay for the PLAAF to modernise its bomber fleet, and forced China to continue manufacturing the H-6 forty years after this bomber first flew.


The failed 4-engine long-range bomber proposal


Another failed 6-engine long-range bomber proposal

According to some reports a new bomber project was started in the 1990s, following Russia's refusal to sell ‘Backfire’ bombers to China, and at least a decade would be required for it to enter service. Possible proposals for this new bomber include an enlarged version of the Russian Su-34 fighter-bomber; a diminished version of the Russian Tu-22M3; or a hybrid of these two designs.

Before the new long-range bomber can actually enter service, a variety of alternatives have been introduced to bridge the gap. The PLAAF is currently seeking to purchase 20~40 Su-34 fighter-bombers from Russia, and going to receive a modified variant of the indigenously developed JH-7 fighter-bomber, both of which are capable of conducting accurate strikes over a distance of more than 1,500 km. China’s successful development of the accurately guided weaponry including short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles and air/sea-launched cruise missiles has also somehow eased the demand for the new bomber.

There are plenty of indian copies too..AHEM...The Indian airforce is called the flying coffin,they contain mostly MiG-21's too.The Chinese changed the MiG-21s so that they could compare to modern aircraft,instead of buying newer aircraft with the same effect,as their budget was limited.

For a start,try the LCA,which is just a modified mirage 2000

[edit on 2/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As for the osprey, it isn't doing so wel, and I don't believ that it is even in use yet.

The Osprey did have some problems, but I think they were somewhat overblown. The hydraulics and software issues seem to be resolved, and since resumption of testing in 2002, there have been no major mishaps that I am aware of, and they have logged over 3,000 hours in the AC. The expectation is that approval for full rate production should come towards the end of next year.

As to hard manuevers or rapid decents, we'll have to wait and see, I guess. All AC have an "envelope" that they have to operate within, and the Osprey is no different. Go outside the envelope, and you bend the aircraft.

The mishap that ocurred last year was due to "settling with power" which is a phonemena ALL rotory wing aircraft can easily enter. A high rate of descent and little or no forward airspeed will induce settling with power. In laymans terms, the aircraft is descending through the already downward moving column of air the rotors are producing. Eventually, the aircraft will not be able to "grab" enough air (pulling collective) to arrest it's descent.

At altitude it's easy to recover from by simply nosing the aircraft over which will instantly and quickly increase airspeed. Unfortunately, you will increase your rate of descent quite a bit nosing over and you will require some recovery altitude. Rapid descents with minimum airspeed are to be avoided and if anyone were to suggest the Osprey should be able to perform a maneuver condusive to settling with power,...well they just don't know how to fly and shouldn't have any input on such matters.

It's interesting to note that the non milspec version being field tested by USCG has been fault free. The Osprey has just passed through a movement and certification test that is critical to pass.

Many people don't actually understand that the Osprey is more complicated than most 3.5 and some 4th generation fighters to build and develop.

Everything US immediately post-war came from two sources: GB and Germany.

The Germans invented the swept wing, the delta wing and co-invented radar and the jet. The Me 262 was a better jet fighter than the Meteor. The Arado Blitz was the first jet bomber. The EE Canbera (shock horror, the B57) was the first in service. Still is, too.

Armstrong wouldn't have taken his Giant Leap without the Germans.

Given that history, what's wrong with copying?

I'll give you points for the Humvee, though. Who the hell would want to copy it? After Desert Storm the British Army evaluated it and said no thanks. In every test they did, except load-carrying, the off-the-shelf, domestic Land Rover Defender did better.

Who the hell said American planes were inferior? The B17 was inferior? It went into service before WW2.

The Zero was more manouverable and that's all it was. No armour, no self-sealing fuel tanks and not faster than Lightning, Mustang or Thunderbolt and if you knew what you were doing you could take it in a P40.

Since the late-eighties/early nineties the latest Sukhois and MiGs/MAPOs have been rated as able to kill Hornets and a step ahead of Tomcat. Don't forget how old the American fleet is. Gone are the days when PLAAF guys didn't wear pressure suits or have simulators.

Although they are good at those air-to-air intercepts where you use yourself instead of a missile...

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV


Since the late-eighties/early nineties the latest Sukhois and MiGs/MAPOs have been rated as able to kill Hornets and a step ahead of Tomcat. Don't forget how old the American fleet is. Gone are the days when PLAAF guys didn't wear pressure suits or have simulators.

Although they are good at those air-to-air intercepts where you use yourself instead of a missile...

^^^ that to against recon aircraft!!