COMAC C919

[tphuang]

if people want to an indigenous plane, the C919 isn't for them chief.
Even if COMAC manages to get better and source more domestic parts for new aircraft, the C919's core architecture is too entrenched in western systems for it "to easily be swapped". and breaking Copyright/patent laws to copy the western architecture without license will DEFINITELY get the c919 grounded/barred from flying internationally.

At this point COMAC is better off making a new jet around the chinese systems. a C919neo variant. or C929.

and you can forget about selling it to nations that doesn't share a direct border with china. you won't be able to deliver those jets as well.

seriously what is it with not wanting to get the c919 to have more range/efficiency anyways, more range gives it more flexibility and make it more attractive and competitive for the market.

If you have not worked in the airlines industries, I suggest you calm down and stop your ranting.

Please read over what I wrote. If you still don't agree with it, then read it over again.

The fact that you are dismissing basic aspects of airline operations tells me there is a lot of things for you to learn.

 

[Rowdyhorse4]

in aero design, you focus on trying to squeeze out more efficiency when possible.

RANGE comes as by product as a result of more efficient aircraft design. Pushing beyond would require to sacrifice on load yes but when you increase efficiency, Range increases without sacrificing anything else.

If you have not worked in the airlines industries, I suggest you calm down and stop your ranting.

Please read over what I wrote. If you still don't agree with it, then read it over again.

The fact that you are dismissing basic aspects of airline operations tells me there is a lot of things for you to learn.

i wasn't ranting, sorry i'm not used to focusing down the quote system yet.

actually i agree with most of what you said, what i wanted to comment on was the focus on range when its supposed to be aircraft efficiency that is target for the next aircraft iteration. Range would come naturally when efficiency increases due to more streamlined hull design, better materials used, better electric system, better engine, better Bleed/PACK systems, etc.

another point was on how easy people think it is to just make the C919 indigenous/sanction proof which i believe it isn't from the core design, you could alleviate some issues like a new domestic engine option but not completely immunize it from sanctions.

I've did a Aerospace degree in the Mainland (though i'm not a mainlander) as far as experience goes but i'm not gonna hold it over anyone hence i never mentioned it previously. feel free to disagree with me, i'm open to it.

A subfleet of c919's is fine and with the number of orders leasors get, i'm pretty sure its possible to have a C919 subfleet for even minor airlines in the mainland + potential further orders once the C919's certification becomes more set and its track record more established

 

[Rowdyhorse4]

i didn't comment on COMAC expanding their airline support logistics because i believe it should come as natural and inevitable action from COMAC as more C919 enters the market hence i didn't comment on or add to it. But thats an eventuality, it has to compete with Airbus' customer support systems in the mainland which is also very strong so i'd actually like to see how it fares in the after service as more c919s get delivered to customers.

 

[tphuang]

in aero design, you focus on trying to squeeze out more efficiency when possible.

RANGE comes as by product as a result of more efficient aircraft design. Pushing beyond would require to sacrifice on load yes but when you increase efficiency, Range increases without sacrificing anything else.

i wasn't ranting, sorry i'm not used to focusing down the quote system yet.

actually i agree with most of what you said, what i wanted to comment on was the focus on range when its supposed to be aircraft efficiency that is target for the next aircraft iteration. Range would come naturally when efficiency increases due to more streamlined hull design, better materials used, better electric system, better engine, better Bleed/PACK systems, etc.

another point was on how easy people think it is to just make the C919 indigenous/sanction proof which i believe it isn't from the core design, you could alleviate some issues like a new domestic engine option but not completely immunize it from sanctions.

I've did a Aerospace degree in the Mainland (though i'm not a mainlander) as far as experience goes but i'm not gonna hold it over anyone hence i never mentioned it previously. feel free to disagree with me, i'm open to it.

A subfleet of c919's is fine and with the number of orders leasors get, i'm pretty sure its possible to have a C919 subfleet for even minor airlines in the mainland + potential further orders once the C919's certification becomes more set and its track record more established

Doesn't look like you've spent time in the airlines industry at all.

Without knowing the conditions, the range figures are meaningless. Aerospace company sales department advertise a lot of stuff. I wouldn't take them all too seriously. Will have to wait a few years and hear from Leeham news and probably see secondary market values to understand what it's fuel efficiency actually looks like. Again, without seeing how airlines actually configure A320 vs C919, it's hard to say weight/passenger vs each other. Range can be increased later if necessary. I wouldn't worry too much about it. A320CEO gets flown all across America and its range gets challenged constantly.

Cargo revenues are overstated. Especially on A320. A lot of LCCs don't even use them for that purpose. If you can get everyone to check in their luggage on your flight, why carry cargo?

As for rest of your commentary, I do believe you can change these systems do mostly domestic.

 

[GiantPanda]

in aero design, you focus on trying to squeeze out more efficiency when possible.

RANGE comes as by product as a result of more efficient aircraft design. Pushing beyond would require to sacrifice on load yes but when you increase efficiency, Range increases without sacrificing anything else.




i wasn't ranting, sorry i'm not used to focusing down the quote system yet.

actually i agree with most of what you said, what i wanted to comment on was the focus on range when its supposed to be aircraft efficiency that is target for the next aircraft iteration. Range would come naturally when efficiency increases due to more streamlined hull design, better materials used, better electric system, better engine, better Bleed/PACK systems, etc.

another point was on how easy people think it is to just make the C919 indigenous/sanction proof which i believe it isn't from the core design, you could alleviate some issues like a new domestic engine option but not completely immunize it from sanctions.

I've did a Aerospace degree in the Mainland (though i'm not a mainlander) as far as experience goes but i'm not gonna hold it over anyone hence i never mentioned it previously. feel free to disagree with me, i'm open to it.

A subfleet of c919's is fine and with the number of orders leasors get, i'm pretty sure its possible to have a C919 subfleet for even minor airlines in the mainland + potential further orders once the C919's certification becomes more set and its track record more established

I don't think anyone here thinks it is "easy" to make the C919 sanction-proof. You don't need to project a strawman to start a conversation.

Like the semicon industry, sanction-proofing is a necessity not a choice. Giving up the C919 and the eco-system built around it is foolish. You do enhancements and replacements over time to take the product closer to the list of objectives you have. The big three Chinese airlines are state-owned and that alone should make them think twice about what happen to Russia's Western fleet. Between a matter of less revenue from lower efficiency on a domestic plane or no revenue from an embargoed Western plane, there's really no choice. They'll have to help bring the C919 and COMAC along just like the Europeans did for Airbus in the beginning.

Like the J-11B which replaced foreigner for local parts over the years, the results in China can be pretty serviceable.

 

[Rowdyhorse4]

Doesn't look like you've spent time in the airlines industry at all.

Without knowing the conditions, the range figures are meaningless. Aerospace company sales department advertise a lot of stuff. I wouldn't take them all too seriously. Will have to wait a few years and hear from Leeham news and probably see secondary market values to understand what it's fuel efficiency actually looks like. Again, without seeing how airlines actually configure A320 vs C919, it's hard to say weight/passenger vs each other. Range can be increased later if necessary. I wouldn't worry too much about it. A320CEO gets flown all across America and its range gets challenged constantly.

Cargo revenues are overstated. Especially on A320. A lot of LCCs don't even use them for that purpose. If you can get everyone to check in their luggage on your flight, why carry cargo?

As for rest of your commentary, I do believe you can change these systems do mostly domestic.

tbh, not really, don't expect 20-30 years haha. I did a degree on it and did internships at airbus china as part of it (and some small craft VFR), COVID struck so i went on to other sectors unfortunately. but the lessons learned from my time is not insignificant for me IMO, part of it understanding airline operation and how they historically procure the aircraft they operate. again feel free to challenge it, although for your previous post as i said, i agreed with most of it hence i left it out. ( i would have focused the quote on the range aspect if i knew i could but i didn't then)

per airbus, am basing it off data used in university and official data set (COMAC uploaded their c919 reference data pdf) not marketing. Airlines can configure the aircraft however they want that is true. imagine if RyanAir manages to actually implement their standing system haha. even so basing off their reference data is still OK imo until further data and operational history of the C919 gets established. though at some point, passengers would get uncomfortable riding a c919 if airlines configure too much beyond its reference design (smaller seat space for example). Once C919 is more used, hopefully we get to find real data that is used as reference for pilots/ground crew doing calculations with fuel/payload/range configuration etc.


mind you, i'm not against mainland airlines put a huge bet on C919 once its more established or better yet, once COMAC launches an updated iteration with higher efficiency ratings.

as for cargo revenue, its up to the carrier on what they want to do with it. the aircraft just provides them the flexibility for it.

>As for rest of your commentary, I do believe you can change these systems do mostly domestic.

Ah do note, that what i mentioned is my opinion not a fact. IF Comac is able to substitute majority of the C919 components with domestic parts without stepping on their intl partner's patents/copyrights, it would be a great thing eventually. I'm just skeptical on how easy it is to do substitution without stepping on patent infringement.

 

[Rowdyhorse4]

note the university dataset i mentioned took it from manufacturer (ACAP files/or what they provided) or airport/airline data on these type jets.
I'm pretty sure these datasets are more accurate than what marketing puts out.

Note: yes, practical real world difference would not be the same as what engineers referenced but it shouldn't be too far off.

 

[latenlazy]

people keep talking about range, it isn't about the range, its the efficiency. Airbuses can go further because its MORE EFFICIENT than the c919. and mainland airlines would definitely care about efficiency.


let COMAC make a C919neo or something before every airline in the industry cash all their chips in.


5% savings IS NOT MINIMAL in the airline industry. ITS MASSIVE. its why adding designing wing tips plays a crucial role in new aircraft as well from Boeing's MAX AT Winglets to Airbus's Sharklet wingtips, From Boeing's Raked Wingtips to Airbus's Curved wingtips. those wingtips only save meager 3-6% but its enough to make or break an airline's decision to purchase or not.

in the airline industry where everyone is trying to scrap every profit possible with their thin margins, 5% is a massive boost. And this is also taught in aero design courses in mainland unis.

in aero design, you focus on trying to squeeze out more efficiency when possible.

RANGE comes as by product as a result of more efficient aircraft design. Pushing beyond would require to sacrifice on load yes but when you increase efficiency, Range increases without sacrificing anything else.




i wasn't ranting, sorry i'm not used to focusing down the quote system yet.

actually i agree with most of what you said, what i wanted to comment on was the focus on range when its supposed to be aircraft efficiency that is target for the next aircraft iteration. Range would come naturally when efficiency increases due to more streamlined hull design, better materials used, better electric system, better engine, better Bleed/PACK systems, etc.

another point was on how easy people think it is to just make the C919 indigenous/sanction proof which i believe it isn't from the core design, you could alleviate some issues like a new domestic engine option but not completely immunize it from sanctions.

I've did a Aerospace degree in the Mainland (though i'm not a mainlander) as far as experience goes but i'm not gonna hold it over anyone hence i never mentioned it previously. feel free to disagree with me, i'm open to it.

A subfleet of c919's is fine and with the number of orders leasors get, i'm pretty sure its possible to have a C919 subfleet for even minor airlines in the mainland + potential further orders once the C919's certification becomes more set and its track record more established

tbh, not really, don't expect 20-30 years haha. I did a degree on it and did internships at airbus china as part of it (and some small craft VFR), COVID struck so i went on to other sectors unfortunately. but the lessons learned from my time is not insignificant for me IMO, part of it understanding airline operation and how they historically procure the aircraft they operate. again feel free to challenge it, although for your previous post as i said, i agreed with most of it hence i left it out. ( i would have focused the quote on the range aspect if i knew i could but i didn't then)

per airbus, am basing it off data used in university and official data set (COMAC uploaded their c919 reference data pdf) not marketing. Airlines can configure the aircraft however they want that is true. imagine if RyanAir manages to actually implement their standing system haha. even so basing off their reference data is still OK imo until further data and operational history of the C919 gets established. though at some point, passengers would get uncomfortable riding a c919 if airlines configure too much beyond its reference design (smaller seat space for example). Once C919 is more used, hopefully we get to find real data that is used as reference for pilots/ground crew doing calculations with fuel/payload/range configuration etc.


mind you, i'm not against mainland airlines put a huge bet on C919 once its more established or better yet, once COMAC launches an updated iteration with higher efficiency ratings.

as for cargo revenue, its up to the carrier on what they want to do with it. the aircraft just provides them the flexibility for it.

>As for rest of your commentary, I do believe you can change these systems do mostly domestic.

Ah do note, that what i mentioned is my opinion not a fact. IF Comac is able to substitute majority of the C919 components with domestic parts without stepping on their intl partner's patents/copyrights, it would be a great thing eventually. I'm just skeptical on how easy it is to do substitution without stepping on patent infringement.

With all due respect, I think you’re far too fixated on the plane’s individual capabilities and are missing the forest for the trees here. COMAC needs a starter product to learn the other parts of the business that are *far* more crucial for the success of Chinese commercial aviation than simply the engineering performance parameters of the plane. Airliners aren’t just buying the cost per passenger mile efficiency of an airplane, but the entire lifetime operational value to cost performance of the airplane. There is very little value for an airliner to buy a very fuel efficient plane that ends up having long downtimes because of maintenance hiccups or ends up costing more than the competitor on servicing support because of operational inefficiencies. I have no doubt that COMAC can build a better plane but that’s really not the most pressing concern for them right now. It would be a terrible waste of resources to build a state of the art plane that performs better in the specs compared to competitors but gets no customers because no one trusts your ability to hold up the reliability side of the business. It’s not actually a bad idea to start with a cheaper less performant product that is easier for customers to accept and digest teething issues on until COMAC has really nailed down the lifetime product support side of the business (which btw itself includes a whole bunch of operational engineering expertise that I guarantee you COMAC hasn’t figured out yet) before coming out a new iteration that can compete top of the line. Sales are not the most important strategic objective for COMAC right now, since you need to actually prove your reliability and value as a service provider first before customers are comfortable committing all those massive contracts to you. They are still in a stage of industrial learning, and that’s imo how people should regard this current iteration of the C919, so everyone should probably take a chill pill on the handwringing about specs.

 

[Rowdyhorse4]

With all due respect, I think you’re far too fixated on the plane’s individual capabilities and are missing the forest for the trees here. COMAC needs a starter product to learn the other parts of the business that are *far* more crucial for the success of Chinese commercial aviation than simply the engineering performance parameters of the plane. Airliners aren’t just buying the cost per passenger mile efficiency of an airplane, but the entire lifetime operational value to cost performance of the airplane. There is very little value for an airliner to buy a very fuel efficient plane that ends up having long downtimes because of maintenance hiccups or ends up costing more than the competitor on servicing schedules because of operational inefficiencies. I have no doubt that COMAC can build a better plane but that’s really not the most pressing concern for them right now. It would be a terrible waste of resources to build a state of the art plane that performs better in the specs compared to competitors but gets no customers because no one trusts your ability to holdup the reliability side of the business. It’s not actually a bad idea to start with a cheaper less performant product that is easier for customers to accept and digest teething issues on until COMAC has really nailed down the lifetime product support side of the business (which btw itself includes a whole bunch of operational engineering expertise that I guarantee you COMAC hasn’t figured out yet) before coming out a new iteration that can compete top of the line. Sales are not the most important strategic objective for COMAC right now. They are still in a stage of industrial learning, and that’s imo how people should regard this current iteration of the C919, so everyone should probably take a chill pill on the handwringing about specs.

yeah, you're right. the spec discussion originally came from talking about the value of purchasing the aircraft at its current state compared to market competition in respect to if airlines should cash in big early instead of leasers. which devolved into individual specs since people started blurting out ranges. and i've jumped on that train.

but back to the point, i've actually mentioned yesterday that 500 initial orders is a good start and COMAC should just keep pace. Eventually lifetime product support experience would develop for COMAC as more orders come in.

in retrospect i shouldn't quote tpHuang as i agree with what he said but rather the previous posters.

my original qualm though is expecting chinese airlines to cash into C919 big from the getgo which is something i don't agree in, favoring a ramp up in order as the C919 gets more established IMO.

 

[YISOW]

my original qualm though is expecting chinese airlines to cash into C919 big from the getgo which is something i don't agree in, favoring a ramp up in order as the C919 gets more established IMO.

These are political tasks for state-owned airliners, and the order is quite small compare to the large market