Talk:Xi'an Y-20

More like a C-17 than IL-76

Various reports show the Y-20 is larger then IL-76, and has outward features like a C-17, seen here and here. A Boeing employee was charged with selling C-17 plans to China, but that part dropped over missile technology theft. Look for evinced the design used Il-76 wings on a C-17 derived fuselage. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Xian Y-20. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131217070447/http://net.chinabyte.com/351/12807851.shtml to http://net.chinabyte.com/351/12807851.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130603122039/http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/pla-daily-commentary/2013-01/28/content_5197556.htm to http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/pla-daily-commentary/2013-01/28/content_5197556.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xian Y-20. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130111233344/http://www.cssg.com.cn:80/ to http://www.cssg.com.cn/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Checked, Failed. Redalert2fan (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Done DrStrauss talk 18:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Xian Y-20 → Xi'an Y-20 – In Hanyu Pinyin, Xian(Probably "现" or "先") and Xi'an（most likely "西安") have totally different corresponding Chinese characters. Yet in terms of this article, we are talking about Y-20 which is developed in Xi'an. Therefore, "Xi'an Y-20" is absolutely a better option. Whaterss (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comments - Whaterss, please give a reason for wanting to move the page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Reply - BilCat, thank you for your reminder, I have given a valid reason above.Whaterss (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support for consistency with Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation. Andrewa (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wired reports that espionage effort involved in development of Y-20

From https://www.wired.com/story/us-china-cybertheft-su-bin/

"In November 2014, while Su Bin and the Garratts sat behind bars, the Chinese rolled out their own knockoff military cargo plane at an annual air show in Zhuhai. At the show, the Xian Y-20—codenamed Kunpeng after a mythical ancient Chinese bird capable of flying long distances—was parked across the tarmac from an American C-17. Aviation enthusiasts noted how similar the two planes looked, right down to the design of their tail fins. The Chinese plane had met its American doppelgänger, just feet apart."

--EdLeMa (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that not proof of espionage, just speculation based on looks. - BilCat (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you BilCat for the input. I will remove this.

--2606:A000:121B:C2D3:A951:4781:5A41:7CB5 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

BilCat’s comment is over a year old, a significant amount of further information has been added since then in support of these claims. It is not just speculation, the hacking and theft of C-17 plans and engineering data has been extensively documented in a court of law which led to a conviction.82.34.69.170 (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Court conviction does not mean anything. There is no evidence to relate that Y-20 has anything to do with the C-17. Also, in that source you provided, it did not even mention Y-20 what so ever. Therefore, your source is totally irrelevant to Y-20. What does a Canadian convicted in US court has anything to do with Y-20? In your source, it stated:"The trio were accused of stealing plans relating to the C-17 military transport plane and F-22 and F-35 fighter jets, and attempting to sell them to Chinese companies." This means that there is no proof that actual sales were made. Thefore this back up with BilCat's statement, it is nothing but speculation. Which can not be used as source !

At last, the Chinese govement according to the source has deined these allegation."'The Chinese government has repeatedly denied any involvement in hacking. Speaking in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang repeated that the Chinese government opposes and punishes any form of hacking. “The so-called case of Chinese soldiers being involved in stealing secrets from the United States is acting on hearsay and has ulterior motives,” Lu told reporters, without elaborating."'

Last statement ! Your keep saying that BilCat's comment is over a year old. Yet the source you privided is nothing but speculation written in the year 2016!! Which is more than 3 years old !! Much older than BilCat's comment. Therefore, you are being totally basis and double standard ! The website Wired itself is inspired from the 2016 Reuter article. It is not even a book, it is not a credible website regarding aviation. Think again, learn how to use proper source first and read Wikipedia rules and guideline, contribute positively and not with your own personal and political agenda!

--2606:A000:121B:C2D3:28F8:9F96:D0A1:9BA2 (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Government court documents that lead to convictions are absolutely proper sources. How are they not? Can you please cite in the regs where it says they cannot be used? Otherwise, I will be updating this article soon to include the full details, cites, and sources linking the C-17 intellectual property theft with the development of the Xi'an Y-20.jlcoving (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.osi.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/2350807/cyber-espionage-for-the-chinese-government/ It is very well documented on the thefts of the c-17 intellectual property. The y-20 is extremely similar, this page would benefit with a section detailing the speculations. UberSuperBoss (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Defenceaviation.com should not be considered a reliable source of information

1. the cited article only makes the claim "the triple-slotted trailing-edge flaps were developed by the Ukrainian Antonov Design Bureau", but neither provides any specific information about any connection between Antonov Design Bureau and Y-20, nor does it provide the source of this claim.
2. and this website as well as the authors do not provide any information about themselves.
3. All the articles on this site neither have the name of author nor any cited sources, not even the date of publication.
4. I also did a google search on the "the triple-slotted trailing-edge flaps were developed by the Ukrainian Antonov Design Bureau" claim, but could not find any reliable source.

Chela (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Bias/Propaganda

The design section of this article reads like Chinese State propaganda. I think to meet Wikipedia's standards of neutrality, it should be objectively verified, especially the statements on composites meeting US FAR standards (comparable is not meeting the standard), and model based definition, where the Xian is listed as the third aircraft in the world to use it, a dubious claim at best. I would recommend that the entire design section be re-phrased and re-worded, and require sources that are not part of Chinese State media, ie known propaganda outlets. 2607:FA49:D33B:7200:9928:FC4:2E07:E166 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Y-20A Line Drawing.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(RDBMS) potentially incorrect paragraph?

In the current iteration of the article, the following is stated:

> In addition to 3D printing, the Y-20 is also the first aircraft in China to adopt a Relational-Data-Base-Management (RDBM) system for its development. Headed by the deputy general designer of structural design, Mr. Feng Jun (冯军), the initial attempt to implement RDBM actually failed after two months spent on the application on the nose section. It was only after the second attempt, which took another three months on the application on wings did RDBM became successful

I was interested in how this was the case, so decided to look at the reference - however, from my understanding (of a machine translation) this statement does not seem to be fully supported - the article appears to reference the Relational Design approach, but not an RDBMS. However, this could be due to an incorrect translation on my end, and should be verified before changing the article. Steamspray (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)