First Comac C-919 rolls off the production line

BuffyBot

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/02/china-big-jet-club-homegrown-passenger-plane

It'll be interesting to see if this gains any traction outside the domestic market over the next few years.

L1011

It'll be interesting to see if it ever flies reliably, as their previous attempt - a bad copy of the MD80 - can't.

St. Leibowitz

Looks very like a 787 from some angles.

BonkeyDonker

BuffyBot wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/02/china-big-jet-club-homegrown-passenger-plane

It'll be interesting to see if this gains any traction outside the domestic market over the next few years.

Given the potential size of the Chinese market it may not need to gain traction outside of it, however, I am sure that if it is a good aircraft China will use its influence with developing nations to help gain extra sales.

L1011 wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see if it ever flies reliably, as their previous attempt - a bad copy of the MD80 - can't.

I imagine it should as a lot will have been learned from that - and if it doesn't then the next attempt probably will.

Long Time Lurker

Now this sounds as Prejudiced as it comes but I don't fancy flying on a Chinese airplane thanks very much. Grand for T-Shirts and iphones. Not for 3 hours at 36,000 feet :-) Sorry but I just would be confident enough in their quality

murphaph

Would probably agree that I wouldn't be first in the queue with my family to board a new aircraft like this, but reputations are earned, so let's see how safe they are in practice (they will have to at least match Boeing and Airbus on safety terms or realistically they have no chance of selling any in the west as they know they are already up against the "made in China problem").

BeardySi

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

Now this sounds as Prejudiced as it comes but I don't fancy flying on a Chinese airplane thanks very much. Grand for T-Shirts and iphones. Not for 3 hours at 36,000 feet :-) Sorry but I just would be confident enough in their quality

Not very long since similar was said about fly-by-wire controls, automation etc.... Time will tell I suppose.

Tenger

murphaph wrote: »

Would probably agree that I wouldn't be first in the queue with my family to board a new aircraft like this, but reputations are earned, so let's see how safe they are in practice (they will have to at least match Boeing and Airbus on safety terms or realistically they have no chance of selling any in the west as they know they are already up against the "made in China problem").

Remember that COMAC will have to pass the same certification as the B787, A350 and all others to operate within FAA or EU airspace.

homerjay2005

L1011 wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see if it ever flies reliably, as their previous attempt - a bad copy of the MD80 - can't.

define "cant"?

if it passes test flights and i am convinced it will, then theres no reason why it wont be reliable.

L1011

homerjay2005 wrote: »

define "cant"?

if it passes test flights and i am convinced it will, then theres no reason why it wont be reliable.

The ARJ21 has not yet managed to pass its flight testing stage due to severe handling problems - this is what I mean by "can't fly reliably". Its actual mechanical sturdiness hasn't been tested and probably never will as I suspect it'll never enter commercial service.

They have decided not to bother looking for FAA/EASA certification, but it hasn't even got CAAC certification. And that's copying an existing Western aircraft!

Irish Steve

Not all Airbus aircraft are French/German.

We might not be comfortable with it, but the West is going to have to come to terms with the fact that China is going to be an increasingly powerful and dominant player economically, financially and politically.

Given the size of their population, and the other pressures on them, they too have very little choice over how they develop their economy.

Buffman

The Comac C919 made its maiden flight today.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39814146

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GPtF8uektw

Cloudio9

Buffman wrote: »

The Comac C919 made its maiden flight today.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39814146

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GPtF8uektw

Sails gracefully into the smog.

Has a Boeing face and an Airbus arse. Maybe it's a "cut and shunt"

...And Justice

You should see the flight deck, its a mixture of the A320/737.

Gone Drinking

Aren't Ryanair planning to buy a rake of these once testing is complete? I'm with the poster above, who mentioned reliability being a concern. I know they'll have to pass the same kind of standards as other manufactures but I can't help but feel nervous about it.

Just to note, some major aspects such as landing gear and flight systems are outsourced from Germany/USA.

Edit: Correction, they're in talks to buy a stretched version (with 199 seats vs the current 168) if everything goes to plan with the current model. Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ryanair-talks-with-comac-a-genuine-serious-commitm-376057/

Cookiemunster

Gone Drinking wrote: »

Aren't Ryanair planning to buy a rake of these once testing is complete? I'm with the poster above, who mentioned reliability being a concern. I know they'll have to pass the same kind of standards as other manufactures but I can't help but feel nervous about it.

Just to note, some major aspects such as landing gear and flight systems are outsourced from Germany/USA.

Edit: Correction, they're in talks to buy a stretched version (with 199 seats vs the current 168) if everything goes to plan with the current model. Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ryanair-talks-with-comac-a-genuine-serious-commitm-376057/

Ryanair has an order for over 100 737-800s and 100 737MAX 200 with an option for another 100. I very much doubt they'll be flying anything else (other than kites) for the forseeable future.

And I see that that article is from 2012 so predates the above deals. It was the definition of kite flying.

Gone Drinking

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Ryanair has an order for over 100 737-800s and 100 737MAX 200 with an option for another 100. I very much doubt they'll be flying anything else (other than kites) for the forseeable future.

And I see that that article is from 2012 so predates the above deals. It was the definition of kite flying.

Cheers. I was not aware of the new order.

Stovepipe

China has been building aircraft since the 1950s so I'd imagine they know a thing or two.

Buffman

Stovepipe wrote: »

China has been building aircraft since the 1950s so I'd imagine they know a thing or two.

Yep, other recent domestic designs in service with the PLAAF show the capabilities of their aircraft industry.

Xian Y-20:



Chengdu J-20:

Electricman

Maybe Mr. O Leary will surprise us yet! Most lilkey he is hunting the sensational news factor.
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/china-new-passenger-plane-comac-c919-rival-boeing-airbus-china-eastern-ryanair-budget-airlines-a7723486.html

Peregrinus

There was a time - within my memory, and I'm not that old - when Japanese manufacture was a by-word for cheap, tinny and not-very reliable knock-offs of established products. Not any more.

There's no law of God, man or nature that says the Chinese can't manufacture to the same standards of quality and reliability as anyone else. Obviously they haven't been leaders in this regard in the past, and perceptions of Chinese manufacturing are shaped by this, but perceptions usually lag behind reality. There's plenty of high-tech high-spec high-quality manufacturing going on in China - smartphones, computers, televisions, etc - and there's no reason why Chinese airliners shouldn't be as good, and as reliable, as those produced in Europe or the USA.

They're probably not there yet, if only because they haven't being doing it for as long, or on the same scale, as the Western producers. But they may be a lot closer to being there than popular perception would suggest.

BoJack Horseman

Buffman wrote: »

Yep, other recent domestic designs in service

What domestic designs?

The transporter is an Ilyushin knockoff.

The J-20 is a clone of Russia's Mig-1.44 and wouldn't be flying had the ChiComs not done a massive hack of Lockheed's F-22 & F-35 programmes back in 2007.

So these domestic designs are just like their "domestic" car designs I guess.

Buffman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What domestic designs?

The transporter is an Ilyushin knockoff.

The J-20 is a clone of Russia's Mig-1.44 and wouldn't be flying had the ChiComs not done a massive hack of Lockheed's F-22 & F-35 programmes back in 2007.

So these domestic designs are just like their "domestic" car designs I guess.

Yes, perhaps 'design' is too strong a word for their 'copy and paste/edit' design methodology, domestic 'build' may be more appropriate. I don't think they're too worried about copyright infringement.

dogmatix

I really like the look of the design - like a cross between a A320 and a B787 with the cockpit windows reminiscent of a B757.

I'd be happy to fly in one - because they would have to pass through a load of western certification standards and if they can then they are good enough to fly in.

It's good to see some more competition trying to break into the Boeing/Airbus dominated market because Tupolev does not seem to be doing much.

...And Justice

dogmatix wrote: »

I really like the look of the design - like a cross between a A320 and a B787 with the cockpit windows reminiscent of a B757.

I'd be happy to fly in one - because they would have to pass through a load of western certification standards and if they can then they are good enough to fly in.

It's good to see some more competition trying to break into the Boeing/Airbus dominated market because Tupolev does not seem to be doing much.

It's easy to build an aircraft from green sheets of a320/737 schematics. The industrial espionage is rife with these lads. That's how Intel got burned, they didn't train any of those lads again, they now have to compete with them.

Too western looking to be one of their own. That's an opinion of course.

goingnowhere

The laws of physics kind of set the rules

Anyway the A320 is the child of the relationship between the Trident and the Dassault Mercure, the regular punter faced with the Mercure think its a A320-100

Stovepipe

now you are showing your age...when Airbus started, the aviation press sneered them until their A300 proved to be a very useful aircraft and the other manufacturers had to sit up and take note. same with the Chinese. They have been modifying Russian designs since the 50s, to suit themselves and have reached very high standards. people to watch out for.

L1011

Stovepipe wrote: »

now you are showing your age...when Airbus started, the aviation press sneered them until their A300 proved to be a very useful aircraft and the other manufacturers had to sit up and take note. same with the Chinese. They have been modifying Russian designs since the 50s, to suit themselves and have reached very high standards. people to watch out for.

The French had built succesful aircraft including jet transports before, as had most of the companies that contributed to Airbus. The Chinese, well, haven't. Specifically Comac have produced a joke on stolen McDonnell Douglas tech that can barely fly.

Stovepipe

Historically, most of the German companies that contributed to early Airbus were the legacy of wartime Heinkel and Dornier and even Willy Messerschmitt had a go on the early Airbuses! They had no background of building airliners since WW2 and had only produced a few small executive jets and a few turboprops. Most of their work was military contracts for the reborn Luftwaffe, so Boeing and the other old sweats laughed and sneered at Airbus' claims for the future but Airbus opened their eyes to European potential. China has a solid background of building military aircraft and embraced composites and advanced electronics quite quickly, so I'd be loath to knock them.If Brazil can go from being a third rate builder of small turbos, to building first class civil and military aircraft, in 40 odd years, so can the Chinese.