Chinese Aviation Industry

PUFF_DRAGON

New Member
Registered Member
Isn't putting politics before commercial success the (or at least an acceptable) definition of too bit to fail? The F-35 has been described thus for that reason.

AIUI the F-35 didn't have any real breakthrough technologies (for the US) beyond its better software integrations that wasn't already extant in some form in the F-22. For the PRC, the new COMAC planes actually represent breakthrough technologies for the PRC.
 

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
AIUI the F-35 didn't have any real breakthrough technologies (for the US) beyond its better software integrations that wasn't already extant in some form in the F-22. For the PRC, the new COMAC planes actually represent breakthrough technologies for the PRC.

- Integrated Power Package
- EODAS/HMD integration
- Shaft-driven lift fan

Software integration is actually an Achilles heel on the F-35, Saab could have taught LM a thing or two here.

By contrast, what's so novel about the ARJ21? Its engines are off-the-shelf, the fuselage is modified from a MDD airliner license-built in China and the wing was developed with support from Antonov. Over-ambitious, it wasn't.
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
The ARJ-21 was ok if it had not been delayed as much.
They do need a more modern design though. Just compare it with the Airbus A220 or the Embraer E-jets series.
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
History is full of examples of inferior tech winning the day. e.g. betamax vs VHS, QWERTY keyboards, etc.

ARJ-21 sells in China, the airlines that use it are making money, and the jobs and most of the profits stay in China. It is a commercial success
 

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
The point of the ARJ21 was not to be a commercial success, but to build up China's know-how in terms of completing a modern manufacturing process and then operating a modern aircraft built by itself. In this sense, it is more successful than the MRJ. (btw, MRJ was not cancelled because it was not commercially viable, but because American labor unions rejected the specifications of the design late into the process). Anything is more successful than a project that does not get completed. However, since ARJ21 requires American engines, avionics, and other parts, China must maintain good relations with the US to keep it running.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
The point of the ARJ21 was not to be a commercial success, but to build up China's know-how in terms of completing a modern manufacturing process and then operating a modern aircraft built by itself. In this sense, it is more successful than the MRJ. (btw, MRJ was not cancelled because it was not commercially viable, but because American labor unions rejected the specifications of the design late into the process). Anything is more successful than a project that does not get completed. However, since ARJ21 requires American engines, avionics, and other parts, China must maintain good relations with the US to keep it running.
Bingo. It was a learning by doing project.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Isn't putting politics before commercial success the (or at least an acceptable) definition of too bit to fail? The F-35 has been described thus for that reason.

He probably means a necessary first step for the industry. Which is political in nature. In order to have future commercial success that politically motivated support was required.
 

Quickie

Colonel
Come on - whichever way you cut it, the ARJ21 can hardly be considered as success, that is just not objectively true! Had it been held to the same standards of development progress as the MRJ, it would have been cancelled several times over.

And how do you know that, other than maybe by your bias?

You can't compare apple to apple as Comac never chooses the path of development of the MRJ whatever it may be.

It has gone for a well-tested and proven path.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
@Tirdent I'm curious why you think Saab could have taught Lockheed Martin a thing or two about software and integration?

How would anyone know?
 
Top