Can China Break Into Aviation World with The Comac C919 !

[khail007]

That's because majority of the crucial component of a C919

View attachment 594427

are from the west

Thanks to enlighten us with valuable information.
If this is the case, my question is, why there is so much worries in west/USA? From all the information you provided, we anticipate that it will be on par in all standards what other aircraft manufacturers are providing.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Congrat China. Believe you can go faster than Boeing and Airbus,to conquer world market, partly because Chinese education and human quality are superior. And Western world understand that, hence the sour mode and bad words.

Why should it be far better than Western planes like you said, when most critical components also comes from Western manufacturers?
I think people should tone down their rhetoric on here. In my opinion COMAC's entry into this exclusive club long dominated by western players isn't it a bad thing either. More competition is always good for consumers .

 

[AViet]

Why should it be far better than Western planes like you said, when most critical components also comes from Western manufacturers?
I think people should tone down their rhetoric on here. In my opinion COMAC's entry into this exclusive club long dominated by western players isn't it a bad thing either. More competition is always good for consumers .

I said they would go faster. I did not say the current C919 is better than Boeing or Airbus aircraft, even after many quality issues of Boeing.

 

[KungFuLee]

u can call it what u want- the chinese media has all acknowledge it as orders. Are u the chinese government? who r u to tell them what are confirmed orders n what r not? why so defiant? i dont care what u call it, that's why i said u can call it what u want.

1008 is small to you- what u think doesnt change the significance of this number. dont worry i will tag @KungFuLee once the c919 goes into commercial service, and we can have a good laugh at what your doomsday naysaying, hell-wishing for the c919 2 years down the road because the plane is scheduled to for its first commercial delivery in 2021.

oh and i dont understand, what do u mean by 'c919 has been selling since 2011'? it's still in the trialing phase.

u r misquoting my point. mine was focused exactly on the endproduct part of the trade- this is why i added in the only stuff that china still needs are oil and mineral ores.

seems like u're here to argue just for the sake of arguing. if i call my underwear a piece of garment, u will probably say no- that's a piece of cloth.

time to get a girlfriend, bro.

thanks.

First of all, I am by no mean try to demean the achieve of Chinese Aviation. But having worked in the industry, I can tell you this, C919 is most likely not going to be success than the next gen (C929 or wharever)

That said, you are the one that said "Confirmed" I merely told you MOU and LOI are not confirmed, it does not matter what the Chinese government do or did not do, it does not change the fact and the definition of MOU and LOI. You can call it trivial, that still wrong.

And I have not heard of any counter argument about 1008 being a small number, well, it may be a big number for you, but for an aircraft manufacture company, it is VERY small. Again, if A320 Neo only have 1008 order, it would have been shelved by Airbus, profit margin is as slim as it is. (Selling 1000 is the same as selling 1/7 of the actual order, which roughly translate to only earning 1/7 of 3 billions profits, that's mean making 428 millions) It also worth notice that the R&D cost of C919 are into 10 billions dollars, while A320neo R&D only cost 1 billions Euros

Whether or not C919 will sell in the future is unknown, so yes, you can tag me and laugh at me if and when I am wrong, but you need to realise this could go either way...

About the sale date, actually I was wrong, C919 have been selling since 2010. After the mock up were debuted in Zhuhai Airshow.

Here are an article written in 16 November 2010 It states COMAC announce 100 order for C919

https://centreforaviation.com/analy...four-gecas-and-cdb-leasing-get-on-board-39890

You can probably search COMAC website and you probably can find their customer list and their order date as well as number of order.

And finally, I do have an girl friend, thanks for asking.

Thanks to enlighten us with valuable information.
If this is the case, my question is, why there is so much worries in west/USA? From all the information you provided, we anticipate that it will be on par in all standards what other aircraft manufacturers are providing.

There are 2 reasons.

1st) Money. It is cheaper to buy off the shelve technology for the first product. I mean, COMAC is just start making Narrow-Body jet, so I would assume they lack of the technology to actually do it. You may think COMAC have experience on making military jet. However, making a jet that carry 2 people and a ton of missile is quite different than making a plane to carry 100+ people and tons of fuel and cargo. It is always better and cheaper to use existing technology rather than research your own.

2nd) Certification. Each crucial part would need to certify, from ADS to APU system down to the Black Box. Everything need certification, and if you make your own, say an APU, then you will need to put that APU to FAA or CASA or EU authority. Which takes time and money, which will delay the project, it make more sense to buy existing APU and put it on the aircraft so what you going to need is one big check (Air Worthiness Certificate)

About the quality, it will be sub par with current technology used by the Boeing and Airbus, because those company (like Honeywell or Parker) have exclusive deal with Boeing and Airbus. Which mean if you buy off the shelve product, they are not top of the line. I mean, that is quite logical I think.

 

[Akasa]

LOL

No.

 

[Beast]

When people say something will 'sell like hotcakes', the phrase mean, not merely implied, that the product is inherently attractive enough for people to SELF MOTIVATE to buy. If the purchases has to be enforced, then at best the product have dubious quality. Yeah...We do not need geniuses to finger that out.

I know you are desperate to avoid the acknowledge C919 will be sold in at least few hundred in numbers. A passenger airplane cost millions selling in few hundred to a thousand is not call hotcakes then is what? Each plane sold to one hundred foreign airline but manage only one hundred sales is?

C919 is definitely a success. Sourgraped just can't stomach it. I know it. We control the market and we are the kin. I know you are jealous, so what can you do beside spewing nonsense here?

 

[God Parshuram]

Garbage made in China

China is unable to make a decent car. Inspite of producing largest numbers of car, it is far behind many countries in car export. China can compete and defeat other countries in pencil cell, low tech low cost goods only. China which steal bike engine technology from India and car design from Germany and other countries is now planning to export plane. I can wish them best of luck.

 

[Beast]

China is unable to make a decent car. Inspite of producing largest numbers of car, it is far behind many countries in car export. China can compete and defeat other countries in pencil cell, low tech low cost goods only. China which steal bike engine technology from India and car design from Germany and other countries is now planning to export plane. I can wish them best of luck.

China make decent car but it just that you choose to be ignorant. Heard of changsa car? Heard of Huawei brand and DJI? They make world class product which I know u are jealous of.

First of all, I am by no mean try to demean the achieve of Chinese Aviation. But having worked in the industry, I can tell you this, C919 is most likely not going to be success than the next gen (C929 or wharever)

That said, you are the one that said "Confirmed" I merely told you MOU and LOI are not confirmed, it does not matter what the Chinese government do or did not do, it does not change the fact and the definition of MOU and LOI. You can call it trivial, that still wrong.

And I have not heard of any counter argument about 1008 being a small number, well, it may be a big number for you, but for an aircraft manufacture company, it is VERY small. Again, if A320 Neo only have 1008 order, it would have been shelved by Airbus, profit margin is as slim as it is. (Selling 1000 is the same as selling 1/7 of the actual order, which roughly translate to only earning 1/7 of 3 billions profits, that's mean making 428 millions) It also worth notice that the R&D cost of C919 are into 10 billions dollars, while A320neo R&D only cost 1 billions Euros

Whether or not C919 will sell in the future is unknown, so yes, you can tag me and laugh at me if and when I am wrong, but you need to realise this could go either way...

About the sale date, actually I was wrong, C919 have been selling since 2010. After the mock up were debuted in Zhuhai Airshow.

Here are an article written in 16 November 2010 It states COMAC announce 100 order for C919

https://centreforaviation.com/analy...four-gecas-and-cdb-leasing-get-on-board-39890

You can probably search COMAC website and you probably can find their customer list and their order date as well as number of order.

And finally, I do have an girl friend, thanks for asking.



There are 2 reasons.

1st) Money. It is cheaper to buy off the shelve technology for the first product. I mean, COMAC is just start making Narrow-Body jet, so I would assume they lack of the technology to actually do it. You may think COMAC have experience on making military jet. However, making a jet that carry 2 people and a ton of missile is quite different than making a plane to carry 100+ people and tons of fuel and cargo. It is always better and cheaper to use existing technology rather than research your own.

2nd) Certification. Each crucial part would need to certify, from ADS to APU system down to the Black Box. Everything need certification, and if you make your own, say an APU, then you will need to put that APU to FAA or CASA or EU authority. Which takes time and money, which will delay the project, it make more sense to buy existing APU and put it on the aircraft so what you going to need is one big check (Air Worthiness Certificate)

About the quality, it will be sub par with current technology used by the Boeing and Airbus, because those company (like Honeywell or Parker) have exclusive deal with Boeing and Airbus. Which mean if you buy off the shelve product, they are not top of the line. I mean, that is quite logical I think.

Certification is not a problem. ARJ21 is a plane design and made according to FAA and EAA standard and meet all criteria. AVIC go thru the whole process and they are already familiar with such process. Six prototype has already produced and in schedule. No forsee of further delay for 2021 handover of first production plane to customers.

 

[gambit]

I know you are desperate to avoid the acknowledge C919 will be sold in at least few hundred in numbers.

Say what??? It is a FORCED ORDER, so absolutely I will acknowledge it.

 

[khail007]

1st) Money. It is cheaper to buy off the shelve technology for the first product. I mean, COMAC is just start making Narrow-Body jet, so I would assume they lack of the technology to actually do it. You may think COMAC have experience on making military jet. However, making a jet that carry 2 people and a ton of missile is quite different than making a plane to carry 100+ people and tons of fuel and cargo. It is always better and cheaper to use existing technology rather than research your own.

Definitely fighters & commercials are two different playgrounds.
Techs already available as off the shelf for commercials fulfilled the standards/certifications issue there is no doubt about it. Boeing and Airbus may ask vendor to supply a same product tailored to their specific design/need.

2nd) Certification. Each crucial part would need to certify, from ADS to APU system down to the Black Box. Everything need certification, and if you make your own, say an APU, then you will need to put that APU to FAA or CASA or EU authority. Which takes time and money, which will delay the project, it make more sense to buy existing APU and put it on the aircraft so what you going to need is one big check (Air Worthiness Certificate)

Exactly ... certification issue is a sensitive and responsible step. IMO, here rather than US/ European standards a world standard thru UN should prevail to filter anything not in line. Such as that Boeing outsourced the 737 software to some sub-standard Indian software developer. Software developer for aviation should also some regulation/certification on par with components manufacturers.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ed-to-9-an-hour-engineers?utm_source=url_link

About the quality, it will be sub par with current technology used by the Boeing and Airbus, because those company (like Honeywell or Parker) have exclusive deal with Boeing and Airbus. Which mean if you buy off the shelve product, they are not top of the line. I mean, that is quite logical I think.

Here, I have a different opinion. Quality should not be altered but the output depending on range/automation/standard.

 

[Beast]

Say what??? It is a FORCED ORDER, so absolutely I will acknowledge it.

Doesnt matter. Nobody will judge it force or not. Corporate will only look at profits and number sold. I know you are sour

 

[KungFuLee]

Definitely fighters & commercials are two different playgrounds.
Techs already available as off the shelf for commercials fulfilled the standards/certifications issue there is no doubt about it. Boeing and Airbus may ask vendor to supply a same product tailored to their specific design/need.

Existing technology usually are 1 to 2 generation (maybe more) behind. That is the item that was tested and used in the field for a significant amount of time before being shared. If I remember correctly, the latest technology are almost all proprietary tech, which mean they are exclusive for Boeing and Airbus.

It will get the job done, but you will have less feature, that is why they are cheaper.

Exactly ... certification issue is a sensitive and responsible step. IMO, here rather than US/ European standards a world standard thru UN should prevail to filter anything not in line. Such as that Boeing outsourced the 737 software to some sub-standard Indian software developer. Software developer for aviation should also some regulation/certification on par with components manufacturers.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ed-to-9-an-hour-engineers?utm_source=url_link

I don't think we can blame the whole 737 Max saga as substandard Indian software developer. The issue is more of a check and balance issue. The reason I say that is even though if the outsourcing is subpar, at some point down the road, the QA people are supposed to catch that, I mean, it's one thing they perform a bad job on writing code, but that does not excuse the responsibility those people who are in charge of Quality Control issue. That is why they are hired for, to catch something before it went south.

In aviation, they talked a lot about redundancy, which mean if one thing failed, there should be another one that will take over, and in this case, this has not happened. That is mostly because 737 Max was pushed ahead of schedule, bypassing several safety agreement, there are also "gentleman agreement" at play between Boeing and FAA, Gentleman Agreement is basically a common practices where there were minor known problem where FAA/EASA told Boeing (or any other aircraft maker) to fix it but still pass them the AWC, in some case, accident happens because of it. And in most case, they are not going to fix it until something do happens.

It may sounded irresponsible to you, but I was involve in actuarial side of the aviation business I worked with before (I am not going to name name) and that mean I deal with risk, and I can tell you this, this Gentleman Agreement are common practices because it cost less even if there are 1 or 2 accidents than try to hotfix an aircraft that are already in production. And this applies to any aircraft maker out there, not just Boeing. For them, it's just about money, if one aircraft go down, you are talking about 50-100 millions compensation, most of them are to be paid by insurance company anyway. To hotfix a problem you are talking about multiple millions of dollars to even in the billions mark. .

UN cannot dictate airspace rules (including registration) because each country have a different situation. Airworthiness are according to the airspace control in question. You probably cannot get a blanket standard to cover all the airspace rule there are in the world.

Here, I have a different opinion. Quality should not be altered but the output depending on range/automation/standard.

Well, you will compromise quality if you choose off the shelve product, again, that is the reason why they are cheaper.

You pay less but you get the bottom line.