Yeah. Does anybody else suspect that when a Chinese airline experiences an accident, the authorities will treat it the same way as the high-speed train crash of 2011 and bury the evidence the next day? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision
The C919 is not a large airliner. The capacity of 160 people is smaller than the most sold single-aisle aircrafts (A320/B737-8). It's a large regional aircraft, competing with the C300 and will mainly be used for feeder or to serve small cities.
I don't want to downplay the importance of the release, but this aircraft is not a competitor for the duopoly between Airbus and Boeing for passenger aircrafts >200 pax. The market this aircraft operates in has far more competitors.
The real revolution could begin if they are able to deliver a real competitor for the A320/B737-8, which seem to be the cheapest to fly <6hrs, considering all costs.
> Is there a technology gap around that size, is that what you're saying?
Yes, both a technological cap and a manufacturing gap.
It's not just the size that's the issue, but the fact that the resulting plane must be fuel efficient. That's a very important factor that made a lot of damage to the A380 for example; it wasn't fuel efficient enough and many of its customers (middle east airlines) told Airbus they won't buy more until Airbus update it with better engines.
Given that proper Engines manufacturing are also the issue for their fighter jets, it's easy to understand why China tries to get its end on any tech it can tech in that field (see: the old Tupolev and its tech they're buying from Ukraine, all the russian airframe they keep buying in small numbers, ...)
Compared to other manufacturers (Bombardier, Embraer) that tend to make regional jets which max out at 2x2 seating, this is a large jet for a non-Airbus/Boeing(/Tupolev) manufacturer.
Only the longest stretched fuselages on the newest 737/A320s can carry more than 200 passengers, and there are a lot of 737-800s still flying that carry 160 or so people. China could very well build a stretched fuselage C919 if the project ends up being a success.
It absolutely is a competitor for the A320 / 737 over medium-range routes, in fact it uses the same engines as the latest A320Neo.
Yes, its notional capacity is 25 - 30 less than the maxed-out all-coach configuration mid-tier variants from Airbus and Boeing, but that's just five seat-rows. The list price is about $30 million cheaper, though, which goes a long way to balancing slightly higher seat-mile costs.
It does have shorter range than the equivalent models from A & B, but that's perfectly fine for many airlines. Hauling around that extra structure and tankage for un-needed extra range actually costs money.
> and will mainly be used for feeder or to serve small cities.
An aircraft that can carry 168 passengers over 4,000km ( baseline ) or 5,500km ( ER variant ) will not be operating feed.
Cost both european and Us aircraft industries have been built on trillions of dollars of subsidies o(in today's $) over decades which no country let alone a company can now match.
China has risen as global economy in the last 20 years or so only. They did not have the resources earlier. Where as Boeing and now what is Airbus started from the earliest time of passenger aircraft in early 1930s-40s. To build everything needed to build passenger planes from the ground up would take resources that no one can match today. And even if they do because of regulatory blockades of USA and Europe no Airline would be willing to buy such an aircraft so civilian aircraft are hard to build even harder to sell. Where as military aircraft China will probably match US in the next decade or so.
Engines are the hard part, and most of the tech behind building them (particularly in how to make key components like turbine blades) is a closely-guarded trade secret of the companies that know how to do it. That's why this plane uses engines procured from CFM (France), and Mitsubishi's in-development regional jet will have engines from Pratt & Whitney (US). There have also been patent issues around some of the other useful bits (such as blended winglets).
Aviation Industry Corporation of China announced a deal with Antonov to revive An-225 production and get the tooling and everything for building them in China, and a lot of speculation there is that the deal is much more about getting the engine tech than the plane itself; even though it's behind current engine technology, just jumping to where engine technology was in the 1980s would be a big boost for China's aviation industry.
Putting the fact that system integration itself is a difficult task aside, I believe part of the reason of buying components from European and American manufacturers is to help pass FAA regulations.
On a side note, since you posted that figure, how many components of a Boeing 787 are made by a US company[0]? =)
You'll find a lot of clothing is made in Indonesia and other SEA countries these days--for instance, my jeans.
As for electronics, I think most of them were made in Best China, aka Taiwan.
Anyway, addressing your implied point, the fact that mainland China (Worst China) can pump out garbage cheaper than most other countries doesn't imply they can build an airplane I'd willingly board.
You meant the last statement as a pejorative but you underestimate the incredible amount of engineering and process that goes into a ballpoint pen tip. Tolerances are on the range of 5 microns and they need to be produced for less than a tenth of a penny each at scale.
It requires extremely sophisticated metallurgy and advanced industrial processes to reliably produce such an advanced object and it's a pretty big deal that China's become the 3rd country in the world to start manufacturing pen tips at scale.
21 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 68.9 ms ] threadI don't want to downplay the importance of the release, but this aircraft is not a competitor for the duopoly between Airbus and Boeing for passenger aircrafts >200 pax. The market this aircraft operates in has far more competitors.
The real revolution could begin if they are able to deliver a real competitor for the A320/B737-8, which seem to be the cheapest to fly <6hrs, considering all costs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family#Variants says the A320 exists in 100-220 seat variants. The A330 starts at 250 or so. Is there a technology gap around that size, is that what you're saying?
Yes, both a technological cap and a manufacturing gap.
It's not just the size that's the issue, but the fact that the resulting plane must be fuel efficient. That's a very important factor that made a lot of damage to the A380 for example; it wasn't fuel efficient enough and many of its customers (middle east airlines) told Airbus they won't buy more until Airbus update it with better engines.
Given that proper Engines manufacturing are also the issue for their fighter jets, it's easy to understand why China tries to get its end on any tech it can tech in that field (see: the old Tupolev and its tech they're buying from Ukraine, all the russian airframe they keep buying in small numbers, ...)
Only the longest stretched fuselages on the newest 737/A320s can carry more than 200 passengers, and there are a lot of 737-800s still flying that carry 160 or so people. China could very well build a stretched fuselage C919 if the project ends up being a success.
Yes, its notional capacity is 25 - 30 less than the maxed-out all-coach configuration mid-tier variants from Airbus and Boeing, but that's just five seat-rows. The list price is about $30 million cheaper, though, which goes a long way to balancing slightly higher seat-mile costs.
It does have shorter range than the equivalent models from A & B, but that's perfectly fine for many airlines. Hauling around that extra structure and tankage for un-needed extra range actually costs money.
> and will mainly be used for feeder or to serve small cities.
An aircraft that can carry 168 passengers over 4,000km ( baseline ) or 5,500km ( ER variant ) will not be operating feed.
Aviation Industry Corporation of China announced a deal with Antonov to revive An-225 production and get the tooling and everything for building them in China, and a lot of speculation there is that the deal is much more about getting the engine tech than the plane itself; even though it's behind current engine technology, just jumping to where engine technology was in the 1980s would be a big boost for China's aviation industry.
https://perennialinvesting.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/112.p...
But hey, they finally managed to make a ballpoint pen so they'll probably be making their own jet engines any day now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/18...
On a side note, since you posted that figure, how many components of a Boeing 787 are made by a US company[0]? =)
[0]: http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-787-dreamliner-structu...
Disclaimer: Chinese here.
As for electronics, I think most of them were made in Best China, aka Taiwan.
Anyway, addressing your implied point, the fact that mainland China (Worst China) can pump out garbage cheaper than most other countries doesn't imply they can build an airplane I'd willingly board.
It requires extremely sophisticated metallurgy and advanced industrial processes to reliably produce such an advanced object and it's a pretty big deal that China's become the 3rd country in the world to start manufacturing pen tips at scale.