COMAC C919 - China's first modern airliner

I think that CNN diagram is a bit misleading. Anyone can make tyres or door signals systems. China could have made everything, apart from the engines. They already do this for their own military planes.
They may include foreign suppliers for strategic reasons. The Russian superjet is built the same way, with foreign suppliers.
Once China builds its own engines, they could replace other items, which they will have to do if it is ever used in the PLAAF.

This is from March 2014, article written by Kyle Maxey, Engineering.com.
It shows large scale 3D printing technology that China has invented, which other Countries would like to access. This 3D tech could well have been used on the C919.

In a recent announcement, Airbus and China’s Northwestern Polytechnical University (NPU) have signed a cooperation agreement to explore ways to produce large-scale aerospace parts.
As part of the agreement, NPU will use its enormous laser-sintering machine to print titanium alloy parts that will be made to Airbus specifications and validated by the aerospace giant’s engineers.

With the potential to create parts that are 55% lighter than forged components, Airbus’ investment in 3D printing could very quickly translate into planes with greater fuel efficiency, speed and aerodynamics.

“We are pleased to have been selected by Airbus … as a partner to carry out the pilot project to explore ways of applying 3D printing technology in commercial aviation,” says NPU President Weng Zhiqian. “This project is a test for our 3D research capability and we are confident we will deliver satisfactory results on quality and on time that will establish a solid foundation for further cooperation in this field.”

While it will be years before we see large parts being flown on massive commercial jets, NPU, which has been researching 3D printing since 1995, does have a track record of creating fully functional, flight ready parts.

Back in 2013 NPU printed a 5-meter (16.4ft) long central Comac C919 wing spar, which is expected to see flight tests later this year. If those tests are successful the Cormac could see commercial service as soon as 2016, marking a major milestone in additive manufacturing history.

Having Western Avionics etc may make western certification easier and enhance brand acceptability and recognition amongst passengers.
If all goes well domestic components can be introduced on later variants.

LesAdieux said:

the rumor is that: the C929, which will be in the same class as the Boeing 777, is already on the drawing board. Comac will not join the A350/B787 race.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it. C929 would be in the 300-seat class, or A350/B787. The 29 in C929 stands for 290 seats. Besides, it does not make sense to jump to the Boeing 777 class from the technical and commercial standpoints.

I wonder said:

I think that CNN diagram is a bit misleading. Anyone can make tyres or door signals systems. China could have made everything, apart from the engines. They already do this for their own military planes.
They may include foreign suppliers for strategic reasons. The Russian superjet is built the same way, with foreign suppliers.
Once China builds its own engines, they could replace other items, which they will have to do if it is ever used in the PLAAF.

Click to expand...

The "simple" design and integration that post claimed generates more profits than all subsystem contractors combined, Boeing and Airbus are surely not idiots sit on duopoly market earning easy money.
For maiden flight aircraft domestic suppliers contribute around 50%, COMAC's target is to increase this proportion to 80% by 2020.

SinoSoldier said:

She's looking fine.
View attachment 20947

Click to expand...

This is one thing that shows the new advanced manufacturing method used on C919 and many other places in the plane that is not visible. The WINDSHIELD. It is curved. The only other jet that uses this is Boeing 787 from my own observation. I don't know how significant advantage this application has, but I do know that it is extremely difficult and expensive to do so.

We all know that cars windshield was flat probably before the 1980s, became curved later. Commercial jets have not until Boeing 787 because the high aero dynamic force on the glasses and frame put extreme demands on them. I know the windshield frames of C919 are 3D printed one piece titanium alloy. From open sources that I can gather, China is the only country who can make metal structure piece in this size using 3D printing. I would guess Boeing used titanium for the windshield frames, but with traditional fabrication method which would be much more expensive.

From the outside, C919, A320Nero and B737MAX are very similar in size and purpose. The real thing that can differentiate them are fuel economy, noise level, reliability and production cost. And these things are not easily to be seen, or impossible for us to see. In that regards, I see all three have their edges.

Congratulations to COMAC and China for this milestone it's great news

This unit is very modern and advanced

Hope all testing goes well as does the first flight

More orders coming

GreenestGDP said:

With all due respect ... ... my 2 cents observation ... ...
IMHO, ... ... this is frankly quite disturbing and embarrassing.

I originally thought that at a minimum, 80% of the components are made in PRC.

If the above Suppliers Ratio breakdown is correct, then ... ...
The Supplier Ratio = American : European : PRC = 11 : 3 : 4
Very imbalance -- and shameful ratio

It will be acceptable ... ...
if the Suppliers Ratio = American : European : PRC = 2 : 6 : 10


I will immediately adjust my own Proud--Meter downward way back to zero.


After taking this long to produce C919, .... ...
So COMAC is basically just a lowly run of the mill system integrator.

Judging by the attendance on the product launching show,
this is way too much hype from COMAC and its supporters.


View attachment 21007


Is COMAC run by Hanjian ?
Let's check ... ...
how many management team have financial assets hidden and stashed in the Opfor land ?


COMAC is trying to clone and become the Indian DRDO.
Shame, shame, shame ... ...

Please take no offense ... ... only my 2 cents observation.

Click to expand...

Accounting for the cost of production for each of the parts and modules would probably give a more balanced ratio for the countries involved.

Bltizo said:

... Are you saying you believe C919 will be the aircraft that can break the Airbus-Boeing duopoly?
I hope your confidence comes true, but in my opinion we are still early days.

Click to expand...

It will certainly challenged Airbus-Boeing profit margarine. Lower profit margarine equals less money for R&D of next generation commercial planes and less numbers of quality engineers and researchers as well.

Bltizo said:

Well, C919 uses a variant of the same engine which A320neo and 737MAX uses, the LEAP-1. And aerodynamically speaking, all three of the aircraft aren't that different, in fact C919 could be mistaken for looking like an A320 or 737. It is the materials, avionics, and internals of all the aircraft which are important, and in that regards A320neo and 737MAX are leveraging the same latest technology as C919.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. The point is that 737MAX was forced to use a 69" diameter engine due to its low ground clearance inherited from the old 737. When the old 737 was designed Boeing didn't foresee the use of high bypass ratio turbofans, so they didn't leave enough space under the wings. They couldn't change it now because altering ground clearance requires a complete redesign of the mid section and many other aspects of the plane, which Boeing decided not to do due to time and cost constrains. A 69" engine is already better than the 61" on current 737NGs, but in comparison, both the A320neo and C919 were able to fit a 78" diameter engine. Despite they're all called "LEAP-1", the engine on the 737MAX can only achieve a bypass ratio of 9:1 (it also has slightly different LPT stage config) whereas the ones on A320neo and C919 are 11:1 and provides higher maximum thrust. So the 737MAX is clearly at a disadvantage here despite using the same engine technology. In fact, industry news has indicated that 737MAX's LEAP-1B suffers from significantly worse fuel consumption numbers than expected, much more so than the LEAP-1A/C. ()

With that said, overall fuel economy of a plane is decided by many factors including wing and body design. While the C919 has a more efficient engine than the 737MAX, it also has a larger, wider fuselage. This gave it wider seats (especially the extra-wide middle seat) and larger cargo space, but it could also increase drag. The newer and more streamlined nose design versus A320neo and especially 737MAX could offset a little bit of this. We'll have to wait and see how the overall fuel economy turns out.