COMAC C919

[Hendrik_2000]

OMG what they do to get a glimpse of maiden flight unbelievable

Chinese air fans gathered for the first flight of C919, prepared to shovel loader with modified platform instead of bucket. gosh they even commander ed trailer truck

 

[mr.bean]

OMG what they do to get a glimpse of maiden flight unbelievable

Chinese air fans gathered for the first flight of C919, prepared to shovel loader with modified platform instead of bucket. gosh they even commander ed trailer truck

these guys are having too much fun it's like a party. kudos to these Chinese aviation fans, without them we wouldn't have much of our photos and news.

 

[vincent]

@SinoSoldier, you obviously haven't been involved in large engineering projects. In software development, developers don't write codes from the ground up. They generally use components and frameworks developed by others. I wouldn't not use an encryption scheme developed by some new grads. It is simply stupid to re-invent the wheel, especially there is a good chance the new wheel is worst than the existing ones. Look at the dependencies of open source softwares, they all have tons of dependencies

Since China wants to break into the aviation industry, it is simply STUPID for them to develop everything themselves because the amount of time and treasure involved. They made the wise choice of developing things they can do in a reasonable time and outsource the rest. COMAC is doing what in the software development world called the Agile methodology. One develops a workable product with added features one phase at a time

 

[MwRYum]

Tone down the emotions, kid.

The Boeing equivalent of the C919 (namely, the 737) sources the majority of its parts from US-based or US-owned companies, much of them manufactured directly in the United States. Critically, the engines (the most expensive and crucial part of the aircraft) are mostly developed and built within the US.

See here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The C919, on the other hand, is almost completely built from non-Chinese components, including the engines. The only "Chinese" portion of the C919 remains limited to the wings, horizontal stabilizers, radar cover, and outer fuselage. All of the internal subsystems, such as avionics and flight control, are non-Chinese. Even the landing gear is not Chinese.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Reminds me of the same bunch of whinners who dizz at MIC whenever the opportunity arises, and all I need to remind them is pointing at their iPhone, said "it still haven't blown your hands off, right?"

What if I remind you that China has been building components like vertical stabilizers for Boeing and Airbus for 30+ years? Or there's an A320 assembly line in Chongqing? How about a 737 assembly line planning for China (date for it coming online is unknown at this time)?

Simply put, C919 like everything else, has to start from somewhere. Project management, components and system integration are the key points this time, increasing domestically-produced components will be targets to attain in future production batches and successive projects, such as C929 and C939.

The key goal is as much as to produce a full aircraft as to build up an entire home-based production and supply chain. Think Samsung: they produce an entire smartphone as they OEM all aspects of hardware key to smartphone - battery (hmmm, dicey!), semiconductors, display/touchscreen, processors, solidstate memory chips, circuitry....now think about the supply chain for commercial aviation. It's not that different fundamentally. The said production cluster can equally compete for component supplyer status as they'd provide for their own home-grown industries. Market competition comes in many forms and levels.

 

[Equation]

Reminds me of the same bunch of whinners who dizz at MIC whenever the opportunity arises, and all I need to remind them is pointing at their iPhone, said "it still haven't blown your hands off, right?"

What if I remind you that China has been building components like vertical stabilizers for Boeing and Airbus for 30+ years? Or there's an A320 assembly line in Chongqing? How about a 737 assembly line planning for China (date for it coming online is unknown at this time)?

Simply put, C919 like everything else, has to start from somewhere. Project management, components and system integration are the key points this time, increasing domestically-produced components will be targets to attain in future production batches and successive projects, such as C929 and C939.

The key goal is as much as to produce a full aircraft as to build up an entire home-based production and supply chain. Think Samsung: they produce an entire smartphone as they OEM all aspects of hardware key to smartphone - battery (hmmm, dicey!), semiconductors, display/touchscreen, processors, solidstate memory chips, circuitry....now think about the supply chain for commercial aviation. It's not that different fundamentally. The said production cluster can equally compete for component supplyer status as they'd provide for their own home-grown industries. Market competition comes in many forms and levels.

Yes but the Boeing and Airbus fan bois has to past some kind of doubts and negativity through the press as much as possible in order to get as many people as possible NOT wanting to fly in the C919.

 

[MwRYum]

Yes but the Boeing and Airbus fan bois has to past some kind of doubts and negativity through the press as much as possible in order to get as many people as possible NOT wanting to fly in the C919.

Pfff. Any qualified air industrial buff would tell you that production quality or design issue at manufacturers are about the rarest of causes for plane crashes. Mostly it's the airline and/or maintenance personnel who drop the ball / circumvent procedures / cost cutting / negligence that causes life threatening problems.

Hell, now I always tell people you got a bigger chance to have airlines screwing you over in the seating issue - y'know, like that poor doc that the United Airlines screwed over just last month? Your biggest risk to experience bodily harm is at the hand of airport police, bro. Come second in risk would be sharing your flight with some wacko who plans his next stop in Jannah to collect his 72 virgins from Allah...

Death due to MIC components? Hardly in "Top 20 list" if you ask me, the closest to qualify for that will be some a-hole who flew his DJI drone into the flight corridor, got ingested by your flight's engine...engine flame-out at climbing or landing is really bad, y'know.

 

[Equation]

Pfff. Any qualified air industrial buff would tell you that production quality or design issue at manufacturers are about the rarest of causes for plane crashes. Mostly it's the airline and/or maintenance personnel who drop the ball / circumvent procedures / cost cutting / negligence that causes life threatening problems.

Hell, now I always tell people you got a bigger chance to have airlines screwing you over in the seating issue - y'know, like that poor doc that the United Airlines screwed over just last month? Your biggest risk to experience bodily harm is at the hand of airport police, bro. Come second in risk would be sharing your flight with some wacko who plans his next stop in Jannah to collect his 72 virgins from Allah...

Death due to MIC components? Hardly in "Top 20 list" if you ask me, the closest to qualify for that will be some a-hole who flew his DJI drone into the flight corridor, got ingested by your flight's engine...engine flame-out at climbing or landing is really bad, y'know.

True, but more people are more likely to read the sensationalize news in regards to airline than to read about the MIC components success and failure rate.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Well it doesn't say so Read it carefully common part pertaining to section 1 which is all about testing even that it qualified further by saying pertaining to non flying task.
It is sound like about working together in marketing, customer service and publication etc NO BIG DEAL
It has zero collaboration in technical field as I guess

The four initiatives COMAC and Bombardier will collaborate on are: 1) specific areas of theCSeries aircraft flight test activities pertaining to non-flying tasks, 2) implementing and maintaining the common items that were achieved as part of Phase I, 3) sales and marketing, and 4) certain areas of customer services related to training, technical publications and parts distribution.

The second phase of COMAC and Bombardier's cooperation is expected to contribute further to enhancing the competitiveness of not only the C919 and CSeries aircraft programs, but also of both COMAC and Bombardier’s overall businesses, and will help with maximizing both parties’ cost savings and market shares, while allowing customers of the C919 and the CSeries commercial airliners to realize cost benefits from the operation of both aircraft families.

The original deal did include common technical features between C919 and CSeries, including (and not limited to) electrical systems, interface, flight deck (later dropped), and cockpit (later dropped). In fact, the list is probably a lot more expansive than what is mentioned here due to a lack of details on the deal.

@SinoSoldier, you obviously haven't been involved in large engineering projects. In software development, developers don't write codes from the ground up. They generally use components and frameworks developed by others. I wouldn't not use an encryption scheme developed by some new grads. It is simply stupid to re-invent the wheel, especially there is a good chance the new wheel is worst than the existing ones. Look at the dependencies of open source softwares, they all have tons of dependencies

Since China wants to break into the aviation industry, it is simply STUPID for them to develop everything themselves because the amount of time and treasure involved. They made the wise choice of developing things they can do in a reasonable time and outsource the rest. COMAC is doing what in the software development world called the Agile methodology. One develops a workable product with added features one phase at a time

I've no doubt that both COMAC and the public knows that the C919 is merely COMAC's baby steps in the aviation industry, for which it is important for the company to stand on the shoulders of giants. For the time being, the current C919 is no more than an exercise in management & project execution.

But for those heralding the C919's flight as a symbol of achievement for China's aerospace industry, it is hardly the case. Not one major subsystem was sourced from a Chinese company. Everything from the HUD to the powerplant have been imported and assembled.

The C919 is, merely put, a test run for COMAC's management and perhaps for its involved engineers. Its flight does not imply any sort of advancement, on the technical side, of China's aerospace industry.

 

[vincent]

I've no doubt that both COMAC and the public knows that the C919 is merely COMAC's baby steps in the aviation industry, for which it is important for the company to stand on the shoulders of giants. For the time being, the current C919 is no more than an exercise in management & project execution.

But for those heralding the C919's flight as a symbol of achievement for China's aerospace industry, it is hardly the case. Not one major subsystem was sourced from a Chinese company. Everything from the HUD to the powerplant have been imported and assembled.

The C919 is, merely put, a test run for COMAC's management and perhaps for its involved engineers. Its flight does not imply any sort of advancement, on the technical side, of China's aerospace industry.

Jesus, you really believe designing and building products are like putting Lego pieces together. Do you know how many components in an iPhones are actually designed and built by Apple itself? The answer is not a whole lot.(

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). Can you say Apple is just an assembler? Is Lenovo? Dell? HP?

There are plenty of engineering work in designing the body, wings, tail and other systems of the plane. There are the static test, wind tunnel test, flight test, passenger escape test, etc. Lots and lots engineering work. I'm sure getting the plane off the ground requires a lot of blood and tears. There is nothing wrong with applauding the achievement

COMAC is expected to increase the amount of domestic source to 95%. I!m sure they will succeed because of the government backing.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Jesus, you really believe designing and building products are like putting Lego pieces together. Do you know how many components in an iPhones are actually designed and built by Apple itself? The answer is not a whole lot.(

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). Can you say Apple is just an assembler? Is Lenovo? Dell? HP?

There are plenty of engineering work in designing the body, wings, tail and other systems of the plane. There are the static test, wind tunnel test, flight test, passenger escape test, etc. Lots and lots engineering work. I'm sure getting the plane off the ground requires a lot of blood and tears. There is nothing wrong with applauding the achievement

COMAC is expected to increase the amount of domestic source to 95%. I!m sure they will succeed because of the government backing.

Did you read my previous posts? Boeing also sources much of its 737 components from overseas countries, but most of them are produced in factories operating under US-based companies. Additionally, the crucial parts of the aircraft (e.g. engine) could be sourced from US companies.

What the C919 represents, once again, is an exercise in human resource management, project leadership, and COMAC's first attempt at a major project (and a tough one at that). What the Chinese actually produced for the C919, they've been doing the same for Boeing/Airbus/etc. for years now. The C919 is not a technical marvel in this sense.

I'd like to see some sources for the 95% claim. The last time COMAC made a peep about their forthcoming projects, it seems that they were quite happy to get Russian assistance (no surprise there really).