It was meant to be a cheeky question

You had me worried for a sec. :Whew:

 

The Wikipedia article names Honeywell (FBW) and Rockwell Collins avionics. Same as on most major manufacturers. And since they want to fly those planes into the world's airspace, all certification authorities are involved. And their standards. Note. Speaking about the two civilian COMAC planes I've linked above. So this is a bit off topic. :blush:

I've seen crash tests on homegrown Chinese cars

 

I love watching these.

 

Watch the cab disappear!

 

As far as I know, China does not have a home grown avionics supply base to source the items needed to build a plane. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

What they would be doing is backward engineering components from either Russian or American built Aircraft. They already have a program in place where they are providing replacement parts to.......

all kinds of (US) military equipment, including: targeting systems for helicopter-launched hellfire missiles; instrument panels of military cargo planes; mission computers for interceptor rockets and in crucial ice-detection sensors for naval patrol aircraft.

 

Canada is a buyer of such parts (source):

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...components.html

 

It doesn't take much to backward engineer from American equipment to develop your own programs, they are already in the replacement parts business anyways.

It doesn't take much to backward engineer from American equipment to develop your own programs, they are already in the replacement parts business anyways.

 

Just like Johnny Cash and his Cadillac.

 

Just like Johnny Cash and his Cadillac.

 

 

:LMAO:

 

And I am a big big Johnny Cash fan of course. :lol:

 

Cheers

More stereotypes, please! ^_^ China is piracy, China only reverse engineers, Chinese planes/technology are all knockoffs. Yeah, right. I think I get that pattern. :ph34r: How should we call it?

 

Well there are some sources on which avionics they might have picked on the military stuff. See above. Care for details. Besides, ever wondered how e.g. the 'cheap' stuff actually allowed the kind of living you are experiencing? Open question.

 

Well, back to some stuff. Or is it real?

What they would be doing is backward engineering pirating components from either Russian or American built Aircraft.

 

 

See correction above :rolleyes:

Saw this today on another website.

What makes anyone think this will ever change?

Earliest example was from 1956.

 

http://www.flickr.co...4983411/sizes/o

What makes anyone think this will ever change?

You are right, stereotype thinking will never change. It's just the amount of people affected. :mellow:

 

By the way, when sticking to the 'scientific' method of comparing photos, the Tu-144 would have been a direct copy of Concorde. Well, needless to say that it wasn't. With all the ups and downs this matter of fact incorporated.

 

More on topic? ^_^ I don't know.

Took me a while to understand the Finnish symbol. :blush: I love the Japanese one!

Saw this today on another website.

What makes anyone think this will ever change?

Earliest example was from 1956.

 

http://www.flickr.co...4983411/sizes/o

 

The argument you were trying to make would have been stronger if half the planes in that list weren't license built versions of the plane they're being compared to, which doesn't make it surprising they look the same.

Also, planes designed with similar level of available technology, to perform similar missions look the same, that's hardly news.

How many non aviation nuts do you know that can tell apart a 767 and a 777 (or even an A330), or a DC9, MD8X, Fokker 70, and a Fokker 100?

What about the planes that were not license built?

If its done legally it's still copying.

That was where the divide in this thread started.

Chinese aviation has a very hard time coming up with original ideas. They do not have any engineering of their own that the Russians, Europeans, or Americans desire.

No one is accusing Boeing and Airbus of copying each others designs (just accused of relying on their governments for subsidies).

The competition between Boeing and Airbus only makes each other better at what they do. Chinese aviation does not contribute to this healthy competition. A country of their size should. I can understand why South Korea does not.

Airbus could've copied their design for the A400M but they believe they could build a better lifter than what's currently offered.

 

All the aircraft John-Alan listed are technologies derived from the same company and the same designs.

The transition from three engine to two engine aircraft were natural progressions for many reasons. The Boeing, Airbus, Douglas, and Fokker designs mentioned above are very different and they would've happened if they were built under similar circumstances on different planets.

Its not just aircraft; its cars also...

 

http://toponday.com/cars-copied-by-chinese/

Would it be ok for you folks if the thread was called Chinese stereotypes and why I want them to be true? ^_^ I mean, that blue word is how you differentiate the phrase stereotype from a simple misconception.

 

Who would care for the internals of planes and cars, when the headlights clearly show.. wait! 'Scientific'. And why would you even want to look into 'copied' planes, which come with a fly by wire architecture instead of old DC-9 tab driven controls and a completely new wing? Do we really want to know the different sizes and angles, the other materials and concepts when this would harm 'our' superficial viewpoint? You tell me.

 

That nation of over one billion people, now being labelled as either pirates, copy masters or just not good enough holds over 1.2 trillion Dollars worth of.. well, the outcome of their business. Isn't it nice that they lend it to one of their friends? :rolleyes: By the way, that's the largest piece a foreign government gave to the US.

 

World leader in shipbuilding, noble earths and even some agricultural products. Well, we better watch them, eh? Ask about electronics. On the planes, I don't think that a smart engineer would reinvent the wheel when starting to develop own designs. John-Alan points that out. So I'm not too surprised that, same as at other manufacturers, refined concepts grow. Maybe they add a fifth pod on the Y-20 though. Keeps the critics calm. :lol:

 

But don't feel discouraged. I like the Hangar chat because I can learn a lot about people. And even when I don't agree with a viewpoint, it's interesting to get to know about it's origins. :smile: