COMAC C919

Orthan · Jun 24, 2021

crash8pilot said:
if Ryanair wants the C919s, EASA will make it work certification wise.

This is an article from march 2020. Since then, comac has been blacklisted by the US government. It hasnt been barred from acessing american tech. At least, not yet. But that political risk is now more real than ever, IMO. I wouldnt be surprised if ryannair would back away from c919 in the future (if it hasnt already decided so). From what i can understand from the article, ryannair only has a MoU with comac for a stretched 200-passenger version of c919. AFAIK, there is no news of this version. Ryannair helping c919 be certified by EASA???? thats comedy.

manqiangrexue said:
Every time time China prevailed and will prevail

Perhabs in the future. But that wont happen with just the c919.

steel21 said:
Why? Why can't the Chinese come up with their own shit?

Because the US and europe have decades of advance regarding airplane tech.

quantumlight said:
Its about eclipsing and leapfrogging not just direct comparison or linear catching up...

heh? to where they will leapfrog????? to the moon??

crash8pilot · Jun 24, 2021

Orthan said:
Ryannair helping c919 be certified by EASA????

Major reason the MAX is re-certified by EASA and the UK CAA was because of a big shove in the back from O'Leary and Ryanair. O'Leary will do whatever it takes to get the lowest cost deals that will generate Ryanair as much profit as possible.

PiSigma · Jun 24, 2021

Orthan said:
I doubt that china will ever make a civilian plane that is competitive in international markets, and that also includes the engine part.

Even if china is able to make one that has decent performance and cheaper than the alternatives, it will most likely still use western tech, and that will always be a political risk that international companies probably won´t take. Unless that it will basically only produce planes for its domestic market, regardless of how good they are, no matter the cost to companies and consumers.

And more important than economics of whatever civilian planes china produces, its their safety. Chinese planes will have to have safety levels equal to those of boeing and airbus. And that wont be easy.

Chinese planes are going to be so safe that it will make Boeing 737 Max look bad... O wait, that's not hard at all.

manqiangrexue · Jun 24, 2021

Orthan said:
Perhabs in the future.

In the past, as with satellites, AWACS, supercomputer chips, in the present, with semiconductors and lithography, and in the future judging from trends.

Orthan said:
But that wont happen with just the c919.

That's shifting the goalpost. You said, "I doubt that china will ever make a civilian plane that is competitive in international markets, and that also includes the engine part." You said nothing to limit this to C919.

C919 is basically done, but if it needs, China will develop indigenous engines for it.

Orthan said:
Because the US and europe have decades of advance regarding airplane tech.

This is the same logic as saying that if you started walking first and I chase after you in a car an hour later, I can never catch up to you because you have a "huge" head start. Powers overtake other powers all the time in world history. Companies and countries rise and fall. China is the fastest moving nation and Chinese companies are the fastest advancing companies. Decades of experience means nothing when nations with centuries of ruling experience fall to new powers.

Orthan said:
heh? to where they will leapfrog????? to the moon??

Uh, next gen engines. Safer, faster, greener, cheaper? You think there is nowhere left for plane engine tech to go? Why do you always comment from a position of ignorance? Oh, right, because ignorance is the only refuge for those who try to downplay China.

Gatekeeper · Jun 24, 2021

Orthan said:
Perhabs in the future. But that wont happen with just the c919

Come on mate. Stop squirming here. Be a man. And admit your error. You're better than that.

Orthan said:
I doubt that china will EVER make a civilian plane that is competitive in international markets, and that also includes the engine part.

This is what you said. I made it into capital because I can't highlighted. But you get the meaning. EVER! You said

Gatekeeper said:
Wow! Just wow!

You're from eastern Europe living in Portugal. So your English perhaps is not your forte. So I've giving you the benefit of the doubt and being fair to you with my previous reply. "Wow. Just wow".

But now you're making it worse for yourself for all to see by squirming like a slimeball, and moved the goal post hoping no one would notice. All you ended up doing is making you look like a muppet to the rest of us here, and anyone in the world reading this. Its such an embarrassment. I hope you're better than this. Alas I'm disappointed.

voyager1 · Jun 24, 2021

Orthan said:
Because the US and europe have decades of advance regarding airplane tech.

Its not like European and US airplane tech is made by God.

One of the reasons why C919 has so many foreign components is because it would be easier to get certification from international authorities if it used "trusted" companies and products

I mean why would the world accept new unproven Chinese companies products for airplanes where a single mistake can kill hundreds? So the key here is, that while C919 uses foreign components, it also uses this opportunity to pass the experience with working with these proven foreign companies to Chinese companies.

Chinese companies also have this kind of airplane tech, but they need experience and time to get aknowledged by the world. So for now the C919 will still use foreign components components, but in the future you will see a gradual removal of these foreign items

Orthan · Jun 24, 2021

manqiangrexue said:
lithography

This is not a very good example, because china is still "generations" behind the US in this field.

manqiangrexue said:
That's shifting the goalpost. You said, "I doubt that china will ever make a civilian plane that is competitive in international markets, and that also includes the engine part." You said nothing to limit this to C919.

You said that china will prevail , and i answered that it wont achieve that with only the c919. They will have to make much more than that. I dont understand what are you saying here.

manqiangrexue said:
Powers overtake other powers all the time in world history.

This no longer the world of the past. Things are not so simple nowadays.

manqiangrexue said:
next gen engines.

Hard to believe that, taking into account that AFAIK, china still hasnt made a single civilian turbofan engine.

manqiangrexue · Jun 24, 2021

Orthan said:
This is not a very good example, because china is still "generations" behind the US in this field.

That is an example of an overtake that is happening now. China has just covered decades of lithography work in 2 years, literally from the beginning of the trade war to now, the Dutch as watching their lithography supremacy chipped away in real time. And the US has no lithography capability of its own; it's all ASML in Holland. The US is a cheerleader; it has no horse in this race. Your ignorance is rampant.

Orthan said:
You said that china will prevail ,

I said it has prevailed, is prevailing, and will continue to prevail.

Orthan said:
and i answered that it wont achieve that with only the c919. They will have to make much more than that.

And that is a completely different point from, "I doubt that china will ever make a civilian plane that is competitive in international markets, and that also includes the engine part." You don't see the difference between this sentence and "It won't achieve that with only the C919"? The difference is you moving the goalpost.

Orthan said:
I dont understand what are you saying here.

Then improve your English because everyone else does and "I don't understand" is a pathetic escape from a defeated debate.

Orthan said:
This no longer the world of the past. Things are not so simple nowadays.

What kind of empty retreat into nonsense is this? The world of the present and future will always hold powers exceeding other powers that were ahead of them before. There is no difference between now and the past in this regard. This concept is so universal that even if/when the human race dies out, alien civilizations across the galaxies will continue to surpass and be surpassed by each other.

Orthan said:
Hard to believe that, taking into account that AFAIK, china still hasnt made a single civilian turbofan engine.

You need only to look at big pictures to see that. China started out behind the US/West in every regard but has overtaken in some (supercomputers, EV cars, quantum satellites, semiconductor design, etc...), overtaking in others (lithography), and have yet to overtake in many more, but the trend is that in all areas, China moves faster and those who can see the big image can see clearly China's threat. Those with small confined minds, can only say, "X hasn't happened yet, so it's hard to believe X will happen."

Gatekeeper · Jun 24, 2021

Heresy said:
There is a fundamentally racist sentiment underpinning this sort of opinion. And I don't think something like this ought to be tolerated here at SDF.

steel21 said:
I agree that there is some implied bias and assumed perpetual superiority in sentiment expressed above.

Why? Why can't the Chinese come up with their own shit?

Boeing safety (Mostly just based on 747 list):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers in India)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On May 7, 1990,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Flight 132 touched down at Delhi-Indira Gandhi International Airport after a flight from London-Heathrow. On application of reverse thrust, a failure of the number-one engine pylon-to-wing attachment caused this engine to tilt nose down. Hot exhaust gasses caused a fire on the left wing. The aircraft, VT-EBO, was damaged beyond repair.

On December 29, 1991, China Airlines Flight 358, a 747-200, crashed shortly after takeoff from Chiang Kai-shek International Airport in Taipei, Taiwan, killing all five crewmembers, when the number-three and number-four engines (the ones on the right wing) detached from the aircraft.

On October 4, 1992, El Al Flight 1862, a 747-200F, crashed shortly after takeoff from Amsterdam Schiphol Airport after the right-side engines both fell off, due to metal fatigue, and damaged the right wing, killing all three crew members and the single passenger on board, as well as 39 people on the ground.

On July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800, a 747-100 bound for Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, exploded during its climb from JFK in New York, killing all 230 people aboard. A spark from a wire in the center fuel tank is believed to have caused the explosion. Changes in fuel tank management were adopted after the crash.

If you think Boeing gave a fuck about safety, then they would not have outsourced 737MAX testing to $9/hr Indian grad students.

If anything, the Chinese would work EXTRA hard to make sure COMAC's record is spotless, instead of resting on their laurels, as Boeing did.

@Orthan

Instead of being selective with your replies. I suggest you look at these replies above, and make your apologies ready.

gelgoog · Jun 24, 2021

If it was impossible to catch up then Airbus would not be around at all. The innovation cycles in airplanes are so slow it is easier than it seems. It just requires huge sustained investment most are not willing to spend. It is harder for China because the airliner industry is so incipient but China has huge experience with military aircraft so it isn't impossible.

COMAC C919

Orthan

Senior Member

crash8pilot

Junior Member

PiSigma

"the engineer"

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

Gatekeeper

Brigadier

voyager1

Captain

Orthan

Senior Member

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

Gatekeeper

Brigadier

gelgoog

Brigadier