Chinese Aviation Industry

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by FriedRiceNSpice, Nov 12, 2008.

  1. Hendrik_2000
    Online

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,489
    Likes Received:
    25,789
    The same can be said of bombardier CRJ series The same location of engine but much more cramp and shorter leg room
    It is also noisy. I fly often in CRJ series plane. When ARJ was design the rear engine is popular with small plane and thin and supercritcal wing can carry much load . I don't think Bombardier CRJ series is much more modern than ARJ 21
    ARJ 21 is the first attempt to design and manufacture regional jet in China after long Hiatus. So starting from low industrial base It is understandable that it take China longer time than say Canada
    And using all metal construction. It is 7 year from first flight to entering commercial service
    But even Japan with their MRJ plane suffer repeated delay in entering the service. 6 years from first flight to service
     
    #2181 Hendrik_2000, Jun 19, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2019
    gelgoog likes this.
  2. Hendrik_2000
    Online

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,489
    Likes Received:
    25,789
    I think they are working now to update the avionic and instrument cluster to improve the pilot efficiency. There is plan for streched version
     
  3. localizer
    Offline

    localizer Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2018
    Messages:
    490
    Likes Received:
    725
    Josh Luo, N00813, perfume and 5 others like this.
  4. Hendrik_2000
    Online

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,489
    Likes Received:
    25,789
    Russian-Chinese project CR929 is coming to the stage of selecting system suppliers
    https://uacrussia.livejournal.com/87926.html

    [​IMG]

    The project of the CR929 wide-body long-haul passenger aircraft, developed jointly by UAC and the Chinese civil aviation corporation COMAC, in 2018 passed an important stage in coordinating the general appearance of the airliner. At the same time, the amount of work that developers would like to give to suppliers was determined. Now comes the important stage of choosing these suppliers.

    On the whole, a half dozen directions were identified in which the CR929 developers first issued a request for information and then a request for proposals for potential suppliers. Now there is an analysis of the proposals received and the selection of the best of them. The final “freeze” of the list of suppliers for the liner is planned in the first quarter of 2020, when the CR929 project must pass through the Gate 3 stage. According to the previous project management system, this roughly corresponds to the protection of the draft design.

    Alexey Kubasov, Head of the Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Systems System Engineering Department, tells about the peculiarities of the selection process for suppliers of main systems and equipment in the framework of the stage to Gate 3 according to the CR929 program.

    An ordinary unusual project

    - Alexey Viktorovich, with what can the CR929 project in the field of international cooperation be compared? Probably, with the first development of the Airbus A300, when the aviation industry of France and Germany participated in the project, not yet integrated into a single whole?

    - From the point of view of the organization of the project, the world experience knows enough examples when different companies united to realize something together. Our previous Superjet 100 project was also revealing. With its implementation was also the broadest international cooperation. Features are in the project CR929. Interaction with Chinese partners, of course, has its own specifics, first of all, organizational. Issues related to the organization should be resolved now, so that the project can move on to understandable to all sides of the path.

    - There are differences in aviation schools in Russia and China?

    - From the point of view of my area of responsibility, everything is quite simple. In this sense, CR929 is a regular project. What difference would it make if “Sukhoi” together with “Tupolev” would start designing a plane together? When the Superjet 100 project began, the team for its implementation included representatives from very many enterprises. Although the company was named Sukhoi Civil Aircraft, in the design block from the Sukhoi Design Bureau there were no more than 25-30% of specialists. The rest were from Ilyushin, Tupolev, MiG. But everyone got together, found a common language and made a plane: in 2004 the project was launched, in 2010 they were certified. There was a desire and a common goal.

    The difference between the Superjet 100 and CR929 is that people speak different languages. But now this is no longer a problem. The basic regulatory documents and requirements of all companies and countries producing civil aviation technology are the same. These are ICAO requirements, aviation regulations, many applicable standards, etc. and here are the procedures for how to apply it, in each company. And our task now for the project is to adopt uniform procedures.

    The Chinese, in their old tradition, strive to involve the very best in their projects, and learn from it themselves. Those colleagues who work with us, they all participate in the project C919, and some even stood at the origins of the project ARJ21. They all have experience working with western partners. Moreover, with the same ones who are now offering their systems for wide-body aircraft. Most of them have already participated in international cooperation, they know the global rules of the game. They know what to develop systems on their own, and how to develop systems with the involvement of suppliers. Therefore, there are no big differences, and questions about the development of most systems today are not worth it. We have a very good relationship, there is an understanding of how we move forward.

    - How do you divide the amount of work in part of the systems among themselves?

    - Now there is no separation. The development of all systems is formally a single Russian-Chinese team. A set of documents and background information are known. We divide the next “piece” in half, and from it they make their part, we - ours. Then we meet on “jets”, check our positions where necessary - we rule and agree, and a single document comes out of us. All by agreement and respecting parity on loading.

    More than 12 thousand pages to study

    - At what stage is the CR929 project now?

    - Now we are preparing for Gate 3. From the point of view of system development, it is characterized by the choice of suppliers. In 2018, we completed the RFP release (Request For Proposal - Request for Proposal - Ed.) For all systems. In April - early May of this year they received technical and commercial offers from those suppliers who wanted to participate in the project. It turned out quite a big list. For each direction of the systems, and there are 15 of them in my area of responsibility, there were at least four candidates. 15 directions on 4 suppliers on 200 pages - more than 12 thousand pages for studying turn out. And there are calculations that need to be analyzed, to identify strengths and weaknesses. This amount of work we divide in half with Chinese partners.

    - 15 is the number of major systems?

    - There was a flexible approach. We considered that for some systems it is better to order the turnkey integration development. We have divided some systems into component parts. Because at the previous stage, RFI (Request For Information - Request Information - Ed.) 2-3 years ago, we received from potential suppliers either not entirely satisfactory offers, or it was obvious that some are strong in one, and others in another. To get the best option for the CR929 project, it was decided to divide some systems into subsystems. The hydraulic system is being developed according to a single HLR, and we divided the air conditioning system into five different subsystems and released five HLRs.

    - What are the criteria for choosing the best suppliers?

    - RFP is a document in many areas, and not only in technology. Therefore, the final choice of the supplier is not only for designers. Our design block analyzes those documents and information related to the technical part of the proposal. We assess the technical response of suppliers to the RFP in terms of two documents: a technical task (TR, Technical Requirements - Ed.) And a statement of work sharing (SOW, Statement of Work - Ed.), Which clearly states for how much global development the supplier is responsible. and for which - CRAIC (joint venture of UAC and SOMAS - Ed.) as an aircraft integrator.

    We use weights to analyze the responses received. We have already agreed on them with Chinese partners mainly in all areas: which groups of answers in which areas will have some weight. This work began in Shanghai in March 2018. Then we discussed the criteria for evaluating the proposals of suppliers for 10 days. On technology then we practically managed to come to a consensus. Now, using these criteria, after analyzing the received materials, we will try to translate all this into digital format so that we can get the quantified value of the evaluation of proposals.
     
    Josh Luo, mr.bean, DigoSSA and 3 others like this.
  5. Hendrik_2000
    Online

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,489
    Likes Received:
    25,789
    (cont)
    - The same work on the proposals will lead, and other units - economists, marketers?

    - Yes, the final proposal of suppliers will evaluate the commission-board. Since the project is being implemented by CRAIC, this will be its evaluation. Those. evaluation of the combined Russian-Chinese expert team. The technical side is only one of the components.

    - What is the timeframe for this analysis and evaluation of proposals?

    - Back in August 2018, we had RFPs for engine and chassis suppliers. The engine is not in my competence, because I will not talk about it. On the chassis, the suppliers in accordance with the plan sent their answers in December. We reviewed them. But since the project lives and changes, some clarifications were born. We have released a clarification to the requirement. By the end of June, we are expecting refined technical proposals from chassis suppliers.

    By the fall, we expect to receive updated technical proposals from suppliers for all other systems in response to our RFPs. By the end of the year, we intend to release our analysis of suppliers from a technical point of view, and submit to the CRAIC commission our position agreed with our colleagues from SOMAS.

    - And what will happen next?

    - Then the question of choosing suppliers goes to the next level - the level of program management. They must endorse the rest of the criteria for commerce and sales. Following the results of Gate 3, all systems will be frozen and all component suppliers will be finally selected. That is, it will be determined what we do and with whom we do. From this point on, contracts will begin with suppliers. To begin with, at least - contracts for OCD.

    By the same rules

    - Will vendors cover the entire CR929 design? Or do developers leave something behind them?

    - When certifying an aircraft, in any case, the developer, who is formally called the “applicant”, is solely responsible for the development and integration. In the CR929 project, it is CRAIC. From the point of view of the organization of work on each of the systems, CRAIC agreed on the scope of work that he would like to give to suppliers. This is enshrined in the statement of division of work SOW. In some cases we are talking about the entire system, so to speak, "turnkey", in other cases - about a part of the system.

    - And according to the glider?

    - By glider separation made. The Russian side is responsible for the wing consoles, the center section, wing mechanization and engine mounting pylons, the Chinese for the fuselage, the horizontal and vertical tail, and the nose fairing. For systems, the division is defined between the aircraft developer and the supplier. Whether the Russian or Chinese side will be engaged in a part of the developer for the present is not discussed. The analysis is still going on in a single engineering group.

    - Russia is responsible for the wing. Will it be composite? Under which wing are you ordering systems now?

    - Yes, the wing will be composite. And system suppliers should take into account in their proposals all the nuances associated with the installation and operation of their units on the composite wing. This is primarily related to electricity and installation requirements.

    - Will the choice of suppliers influence the place of production of the wing panels - will it be Vladivostok or some other place, or the final assembly site of the CR929 aircraft, - Shanghai?

    - From the point of view of systems, this does not play a big role now. Component suppliers are waiting for us only the final point, where they deliver their products.

    Production in Russia is much cheaper

    - Are any preferences planned for Russian or Chinese suppliers?

    - In terms of technology, no one has any preferences. Because technology is, first of all, safety and performance. Here is exactly the same approach to all suppliers. Everything else that is connected with the economic, logistic or production parts will, of course, be judged by its criteria.
    Partner selection

    - In the Superjet 100 project, many companies were suppliers of many systems. Although for the production of engines SaM146 French Snecma and the Russian NPO Saturn created a joint venture PowerJet. When identifying suppliers for the MS-21 project, it has already been expressed that foreign companies have Russian partners. Are there any similar wishes for CR929 suppliers?

    - There is no such requirement. But there are recommendations to have Russian or Chinese partners. For our part, we are also trying to encourage potential suppliers to create such alliances. The most striking example that we have here is one of the bidders for the chassis, the company Liebherr Aerospace Lindenberg, announced the competition with the Russian-Chinese cooperation. The Chinese subsidiary Liebherr, a division of the Chinese state-owned company for the production of aerospace equipment COMAC and the Russian Gidromash, also participates in their application. They created such an alliance, for which they signed a four-sided document, in which they already decided on the separation of engineering and production works, tests. The Chinese have already begun to expand their poster base for this. Although initially Liebherr entered the competition independently,

    - You said that after Gate 3 the list of suppliers will be frozen. Possible for some reason after this change in the list?

    - We hope that from the point of view of technology, our analysis will be reliable, and suppliers send us relevant information for this analysis. During my work, there has never been a change in supplier position due to technical problems.

    - What are the final plans for the CR929 program?

    - We expect that the flight tests of the CR929 program will begin approximately by 2023-2025, and we expect the first deliveries to the airlines approximately by 2025-2027.
     
    DigoSSA, jobjed and N00813 like this.
  6. asif iqbal
    Offline

    asif iqbal Brigadier

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    8,537
    Likes Received:
    8,589
    surprising that between Russia (biggest landmass) and China (largest population ) they still put the tender for engine to Western countries

    thus will make it prone to sanctions
     
Loading...

Share This Page