Talk:AVIC AG600

Photo

 * I'm sure the Chinese are well capable of the production of the craft, but more proof is needed.174.125.73.246 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do they not have a camera? No cell phone camera? in this day and age nothing is verified without a photo. Maybe they hide something? Is it just another knockoff from the west?174.125.73.246 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Who built it?
The article currently cannot make up its mind whether AVIC or CAIGA built the prototype. Which is correct? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It was built by CAIGA. CAIGA is a subsidiary of AVIC. 安眠3 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

And it was assisted by other members of AVIC. 安眠3 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. did CAIGA design it as well? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It is designed by Special Vehicle Research Institute, another subsidiary of AVIC. 安眠3 (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you once more. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Size of Aircraft
The AG600 is not the largest flying amphibious aircraft in the world, It is The largest amphibious aircraft in production right now.

The Martin Mars is the largest flying right now, And made a flight last year according to your Martin Mars article and has had flights these year.(68.189.53.222 (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC))


 * No, you are mistaken. The Martin Mars is not amphibian, it is an ordinary flying boat and does not have land capability. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This also applies to the Hughes H-4 Hercules flying boat, another not-an-amphibian that keeps getting mistakenly mentioned. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

An improved derivative of the older Harbin H-5 ?
As the plane is clearly a derivative of the previous large amphibian built by China in the 80s, its useful to refer directly to the SH-5 in the text.

A similar approach was used for the article on the ShinMaywa_US-2. I quote the entire reference here " ShinMaywa (as Shin Meiwa was by then renamed) began plans for an upgraded version of the US-1A, the US-1A kai (US-1A 改 - "improved US-1A"). This aircraft features numerous aerodynamic refinements, a pressurised hull, and more powerful Rolls-Royce AE 2100 engines"

AS this shows other aviation articles refer in a general way to the  previous model when highly similar. It doesnt diminish the plane but provides context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.120.224 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That is fine, but to make claims like this you need to cite a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I took that in and adjusted the wording so I wasnt adding my opinion anymore but just  with  known facts comparing the  general dimensions of the newer version of the   plane from the reliable sources in the SH-5 article. That wasnt liked either and yet the US-2 article cites no sources for the comparison of  its earlier model. Do you think these two planes cant be compared ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.120.224 (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that unless there is a reliable source that compares these we are not allowed to do that ourselves as it would be original research. - Ahunt (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, the US-2 was originally called the "US-1A kai", so it's obvious it's an improved US-1 in that case. It's not obvious in this one, so a reliable source is needed to prove the relationship. - BilCat (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)