Hi everyone,

I´ve seen this on Youtube, it might be of some interest for someone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpDWImymsPg


Take care.

According to the article below, there are still lots of issues that need to be resolved:

Comac had its ARJ21-700 to carry out new test flights following a series of optimizations of the aircraft. Last September, the aircraft manufacturer had not made a mystery of certain elements that were still defective or requiring a review, including cabin noise far too high, warning systems too complex and a problem Likely associated with pressurization.

Comac intends to implement the planned changes by the end of 2017 before considering a weight loss program as the aircraft is heavier than expected. Until now, the aircraft has carried out flight tests in the form of landing and take-offs with crosswinds, testing of a modernized flight control system software.

When the aircraft received type certification from the Chinese Civil Aviation Authority more than a year and a half ago, the same authority has asked the aircraft manufacturer to implement at least seven improvements, subject to these flight tests.

Translated from http://www.air-cosmos.com/nouveaux-vols ... nois-93499

KarelXWB wrote:

According to the article below, there are still lots of issues that need to be resolved:

Comac had its ARJ21-700 to carry out new test flights following a series of optimizations of the aircraft. Last September, the aircraft manufacturer had not made a mystery of certain elements that were still defective or requiring a review, including cabin noise far too high, warning systems too complex and a problem Likely associated with pressurization.

Comac intends to implement the planned changes by the end of 2017 before considering a weight loss program as the aircraft is heavier than expected. Until now, the aircraft has carried out flight tests in the form of landing and take-offs with crosswinds, testing of a modernized flight control system software.

When the aircraft received type certification from the Chinese Civil Aviation Authority more than a year and a half ago, the same authority has asked the aircraft manufacturer to implement at least seven improvements, subject to these flight tests.

Translated from http://www.air-cosmos.com/nouveaux-vols ... nois-93499

Its like I have been saying for so long. Chengdu, which is flying 2 ARJ21's.... only on occasion... is a COMAC subsidiary. They have been delivered to them to give the appearance that the program is moving along. The plane still has many technical problems that need to be resolved before they can be delivered to third party airlines. In the meantime, the plane is over 10 years late from original entry in service date. Even 10 years ago, the technology on this plane was dated. Now it makes one wonder, over 10 years after, if the airlines originally ordering this plane still want it.

Being its in all reality a re engineered dc9 derivative they need to make 20 or so for Delta to buy up in 10years to keep the 717s company. Gonna miss the mad dogs when they finally go... It will be too quite at the airport!

c933103 wrote:

http://sh.xinhuanet.com/2017-04/22/c_136228393.htm
ARJ21 just carried its 10,000th passenger yesterday.
On the report's page 5 you can see a photo of the airline's safety director and two engineers from the airline's maintenance department ARJ21 squadron seating in the aircraft

KarelXWB wrote:

According to the article below, there are still lots of issues that need to be resolved:

Comac had its ARJ21-700 to carry out new test flights following a series of optimizations of the aircraft. Last September, the aircraft manufacturer had not made a mystery of certain elements that were still defective or requiring a review, including cabin noise far too high, warning systems too complex and a problem Likely associated with pressurization.

Comac intends to implement the planned changes by the end of 2017 before considering a weight loss program as the aircraft is heavier than expected. Until now, the aircraft has carried out flight tests in the form of landing and take-offs with crosswinds, testing of a modernized flight control system software.

When the aircraft received type certification from the Chinese Civil Aviation Authority more than a year and a half ago, the same authority has asked the aircraft manufacturer to implement at least seven improvements, subject to these flight tests.

Translated from http://www.air-cosmos.com/nouveaux-vols ... nois-93499

According to http://www.kaixian.tv/gd/2017/0420/258516.html they have finished 7 tests, which was from Mar 27 to Apr20, with one of the test with were testing performance of engine and APU under direct crosswind up to 27kt to extend possible operation condition, and others being testing upgraded flight control system software, noise test, VHF antenna vibration test, cabin door howling test, pilot promotion training, and AT non-command-break in-air test. It said that they will summarize experience from the test and after certain period of maintenance they will continue to optimize the design and carry out test flight.

Type certification was December of 2014. It has been 27, almost 28, months since certification. Take back a few months for typical EIS and we see:
Two years is 730 flying days. 50 passengers or 100 per day if there is a round trip. So there should be with 1 aircraft one round trip per day over 73k seats. With two... Getting to 10,000 passengers is not so impressive. With two aircraft, we should have been celebrating breaking 100k passengers. But we shouldn't be at two aircraft for a certified airframe.

Put it into perspective, the C-series from July to November 2016 carried 116,000
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2016/1 ... d-morocco/

While the ARJ-21 is smaller, we should be seeing a rate 40% or so of the C-series, not the current rate which is 2% of the c-series.

Everything sounds like the extended design and flight testing wasn't complete. I'm under the impression the ARJ-21 is carrying passengers in flight test. Yikes!

Now some of the changes are normal (e.g., weight loss) for a new aircraft. But this was a simple aircraft with simple engines, simple avionics, and a low risk approach for early entry into service. So why hasn't it been flying more?

To everyone, a bit of history of Chinese aircraft development:
What have the various Chinese vendors fixed in the C919? To be blunt the ARJ-21 is the 3rd botched Chinese aviation program and the first was the simpler MA-60 turboprop and Y-10. Mr. Wu Xingshi does not have a success record. I'm not aware of a MA-60 or MA-600 that stayed in service through a heavy maintenance cycle; they tend to be parked early due to un-discussed issues. I'll give them a pass on the Y-10 as a learning exercise. But the 3rd aircraft is no longer a learning exercise. The 4th is the C919 which must be viable in high utilization duty. They dare to have the 5th a widebody, which I find to be ambitious considering how much tougher the criteria for a widebody is.

I expected more from the ARJ-21. Someone please let me know in what categories it is economically superior to the CRJ-900 and E1-170/175. The low purchase price will be easily consumed in higher variable costs during the first 5 years. The rule of thumb is to sell an aircraft, it has to be clearly the better option for the first decade (typical 1st lease is of 12 years duration in this industry, although quite a few airlines pay a premium for shorter leases).

The ARJ-21 competes with used E1-170/175 or CRJ-900s. I'm just not seeing the superior economics. Luckily for the ARJ-21, the MRJ has been quite delayed (but looking at Mitsubishi's early definition, I cannot be that surprised, just sad as I really like the concept of the MRJ).

I'm curious also as to the E2-190 market. I'm predicting a larger market than so far has been shown. If the E2-190 does well, it will put pressure on smaller competitors such as the ARJ-21.

Lightsaber

Let's all remember the ARJ-21 project was officially launched in 2002. So over 14 years in.
About 3:30 into the video in post #52.

From that video the ARJ claim is higher altitude performance. I couldn't find the maximum landing/takeoff altitude for the E-170, I was able to find a link that noted > 8,000 ft, but not from links I'd stand behind (but the number seems about right). COMAC certified the ARJ-21 at Xining at 2,184 or 7,184 ft. (Article just over 6 weeks old, so this should be the current certification).
http://www.chinaaviationdaily.com/news/61/61235.html

Note: Other links tried to imply this airport was part of the Tibet plateau, but it is in China at lower altitude than I consider part of that... Eh...

So I'm having trouble figuring out what market niche the ARJ-21 defines for itself? Most new aircraft we can identify it.
The MRJ will be the lowest CASM in the < 100 seat market out to 1,000 nm.
The C-series is incredibly light and has even better CASM as well as competitive cost per flight, the CS100 has amazing short field performance.
MAX -8 is incredibly cost effective. Unfortunately for Boeing, only that model sticks out as a great performer. I like the 'new' -7, but it will be at a competitive disadvantage versus the A320NEO or CS300 in my opinion (more revenue or lower cost per flight).
The NEO A320 has good cost per flight and great range with 162 passengers, the A321NEO has such good CASM on > 1,000nm routes (long turn times dictates longer routes), it has an obvious niche. With the short field kit, the A320NEO (not A321NEO) will open up more airports where the A319 or 737-700 were required in the past.

IMHO, the C-series, NEO, and MAX will will/lose orders based on specific airline needs. All three are very competitive.

But I never was able to figure out what niche the ARJ-21 occupies.

Same with the C919. I'm not sure where it is clearly superior to the competition.

The MC-21 is built to be incredibly economical in a high density configuration, so there is its niche.

Wow, the manager from GE wasn't kind, "long time coming, 10 to 12 years coming".

I'm still floored by only 10,000 passengers in 2 years...

Lightsaber

r2rho wrote:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 2):I've never heard of a production license following certification by 7 months?!?
It never occurred to me that the two wouldn't be done in parallel.
Indeed. I guess we are so accustomed to to seeing them done in parallel that we cannot imagine otherwise. This is an indication that the ARJ program is still not fixed...

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):Instead Comac is saying they won't even try to certify the C919 in the West !

The problem is that the ARJ-21 was to be the enabler for Western C919 certification, as the FAA was conducting a shadow certification of that airplane and monitoring the CAAC throughout the process. If only for that reason, certifying the ARJ-21 was strategically crucial even if commercially unsuccesful. Giving up Western certif on the C919 is implicitly acknowledging that this shadow certifcation has failed.
And I agree with you that even if the a/c were never to sell in the West, an FAA / EASA "stamp" on it would give it - and the Chinese aviation industry - valuable credibility for other markets.

according to Aviation week EASA is monitoring the C919 but Not the FAA. So? It won't be certified in the USA for the moment. Can't say forever

c933103 wrote:

Have the ARJ21 gained production certificate yet? I was searching for relevant news but there are barely any updates, other than when the second frame get delivered to Chengdu, they said they would like to have PC in 2016 Oct, and a new from 2017 April that said the certification center were reporting to CAAC deputy head regarding the certification process of ARJ21's production certificate. I take that as they still does not have its production certificate?

I haven't found any press release that the production certificate has been issued yet. That implies issues beyond what I'm aware of. . Right now, every airframe is hand retouched; that is an expensive process to complete an airframe.

I'm still amazed that the production process wasn't done in parallel with the design. The prototype parts must be produced to print, so the layout of the process is the same. The difference is batch size and assembly technique (the later are more formalized than initial prototypes as all the parts are ready prior to install, but often not for a prototype).


Prototypes are supposed to be rebuilt prior to passenger duty. They are not supposed to be in service as is...

Lightsaber

I think people are being unrealistic. China is at the beginning of a long road. In 75 years, they will be building competitive jets, you wait.

According to FR24, both Chengdu Airlines ARJ 21-700 aircraft (B-3321 and B-3322) haven't flown since 27 May 17. The flight numbers EU6667/6668 and EU6669/6670 usually operated by the two ARJ 21 were all operated by A319/A320. Does anyone have an update on the status of the two ARJ 21-700 aircraft? When are they planned to return to scheduled service?

Any flights? Most of the issues I know of with the ARJ-21 still haven't been addressed. They'll lurk as the certification process was very sub par. It won't be GE's fault when the CF-34s go in for early shop visits...

c933103 wrote:

http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/military/1430868.html
It said that #107, #108, #109, #110, #111 are currently under different stage of assembly as they will be getting quantitative production certification in upcoming recent times, and they planned to make up to 6 planes simultaneously in the year and deliver all of them within the year. #110 will be a Bizjet for Yan Shang Groip
And it is said that they are constructing another factory at Pudong, and adding two manufacturer base together the annual manufacturing capacity would be 30/year

Why would you split production for such tiny numbers. Generally, economics of scale keep improving to about 200 to 400 per year. After that, the driving distances to move parts and people around justify a 2nd site.

Lightsaber

Flighty wrote:

I think people are being unrealistic. China is at the beginning of a long road. In 75 years, they will be building competitive jets, you wait.

And you wouldn't be proven wrong as virtually ALL of us here wouldn't wait that long. Jeez, aren't you being super mega safe with your prediction?

Flighty wrote:

I think people are being unrealistic. China is at the beginning of a long road.

If you mean Chinese people then I agree.

But they're not at the beginning of a long road, they have been building airplanes since WW2. They don't need time they need to learn from previous mistakes.

Where is the first FAL located, and where will the new one be placed? It isn't completely unthinkable that the existing factory might have been one of the root-causes in the ARJs problems, and by moving the FAL to a more competent facility they could solve a whole bunch of troubles.

The orders issue isn't harder than that the Peoples government could just place a massive order for several hundred in one go and impose them on the Chinese airlines. They have the ability to do so. Seeing how obsolete the design is gradually becoming, it would probably be COMACs best chance at saving something from this sorry saga.

Flightglobal on the subject:

ARJ21 marks first year of commercial operations

The Comac ARJ21 regional jet has completed a year of commercial operations, however the manufacturer has still yet to receive a production certificate for the aircraft.

Launch customer Chengdu Airlines first deployed MSN 106 on the Chengdu-Shanghai route on 28 June 2016. The carrier now has two ARJ21s in service, operating 16 sectors weekly from Chengdu to Changsha and Shanghai.

77west wrote:

Overthecascades wrote:

China is better than this, as they have proven with the C919. Stop stealing other people's designs.

You do know that the C919 looks like an Airbus and ironically Airbus built an assembly facility in Tianjin in 2014 to secure further orders in China.

So in may ways China is just following the same M.O. as they did with the MD90.

Why hack a manufacturer when you can have them set up the tooling in your own backyard.

And it is said that they are constructing another factory at Pudong, and adding two manufacturer base together the annual manufacturing capacity would be 30/year

AFAIK, they still don't have a POA (production organization approval). Could the current FAL be partly to blame for that? And could they then have reached the conclusion that it's easier to set up a new FAL, designed from the start to meet certification standards, than to rework the current one? Just a wild guess...

Production certificate has been granted:

Comac has received the production certificate for its ARJ21-700 regional jet, more than 2.5 years after the aircraft received type certification.

This was presented to the Chinese manufacturer by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) in a ceremony on 9 July, signifying that the aircraft can now enter batch production.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... te-439148/

Quick production update:

Comac is moving ahead with plans for volume production of the ARJ21, while working to overcome what officials acknowledge as shortcomings in the regional jet’s reliability. Although only two ARJ21s have entered service since the type’s first delivery in November 2015, a further five will be handed over this year, a program source says. A long-planned executive-transport version will fly in 2018.

Comac Advances ARJ21 Volume-Production Plans

Im confused.... if it's not allowed to fly into western markets why was it allowed to land Vienna & Athens?

INFINITI329 wrote:

Im confused.... if it's not allowed to fly into western markets why was it allowed to land Vienna & Athens?

Experimental certificate.