http://m.aviationweek.com/singapore-air ... t-delivery

My take:

Delivery isn't 2018 or 2020 anymore.

My estimate is only 10 hours or so on aircraft #1.

I do not know Chinese certification rule, but under the FAA, if the first aircraft hasn't completed the core block of testing, usually 400 to 500 hours, later aircraft must repeat that testing. Now, this doesn't impact the first about 40 hours of each prototype, so complete that while the Pathfinder progresses.

But it is concerning the. 5 month downtime. For what it's worth, I'll schedule ten hours for a prototypes first week. I've seen 20 hours week one for a new type.

Does anyone have a link to C919 systems center testing (ironbird). I cannot imagine what is taking so long unless there was a poor systems center lab process. When the system center lab is hooked up to the ironbird and you see all the actuators move to computer or pilot command while the simulator screens show the 'flight' progress, it is impressive.

Especially when you find a bug. It takes metal parts bouncing off the bullet proof glass now and then to convince management the value of a system center lab...

Sorry, as a test engineer, I enjoy tweaking Responsible Design Engineers and management on how it always cost more to skip lower level testing...

Lightsaber

That's another 12-month delay.

KarelXWB wrote:

That's another 12-month delay.

I'm more concerned that this 2013 prediction is coming true:
http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... ience-c919


I've heard nothing but platitudes on the maintenance plan.

To those not familiar with the difference between military and commercial design, the big difference is time of intense use between overhauls. Military aircraft are typically engineered for thousands of cycles between overhauls where a typical military mission is 3 or 4 cycles, but a dogfight might count well into the hundreds. It is acceptable for an overhaul to cost a third of the aircraft purchase price (pretty typical actually). Because of the overhaul costs, military planes are OK having downtime as long as they can fly 20 to 30 days intensely. For old soviet designs, 120 flights was it (air war won or lost by 20 flights).

Commercial aircraft are designed one flight one cycle (no terrain following or over 1.5G turns). They are designed to go 6 to 12 years between overhauls and overhauls better be economical.

So what will the C919 be.

Of the Chinese commercial aircraft:
There 707 copy went nowhere

No MA-60 has be flown to overhaul. 100% parked do to issues prior to that. MA-600 is having issues too...

ARJ-21 has 4 aircraft flying 4 flights that should be flown by one aircraft and high incidence of A320 substitution.

C919 EIS now 3 years late. Everyone should recall, this was the LEAP engine launch customer.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Everyone should recall, this was the LEAP engine launch customer.

So A and B LEAPed over C!

It has so much promise, but another 12 month delay doesnt sound good. But then again, 787 had delays, most new aircraft do. I guess because this is brand new player in the market that it gets scrutinized more

lightsaber wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

That's another 12-month delay.

I'm more concerned that this 2013 prediction is coming true:
http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... ience-c919

I have been saying it for years, but Comac has no clear path towards FAA certification. As the article points out:

In addition, the task of properly certificating a secondary component supplier under FAA guidelines is unknown to Comac, and it has dozens of Chinese suppliers to audit. It just cannot be done in a timely manner, or at least by the new target date of 2015 for the maiden flight. Up to mid-2012, Comac engineers were still asking basic questions: Can you help us design a test protocol for this system? How do Boeing or Airbus do this, what documents do we need for the FAA to approve this system ? It was shocking since Comac was only two years away from the originally scheduled first flight in 2014.

Just look what happened to the MRJ when the manufacturer does not fully understand how to certify a new jetliner. If a design flaw is discovered late in the process, it will push back entry into service.

People insist Comac will go after EASA certification, but that's just as difficult as FAA certification. As long as there are no FAA/EASA engineers stationed in China, I'm not sure how Comac can achieve its goal.

KarelXWB wrote:

People insist Comac will go after EASA certification, but that's just as difficult as FAA certification. As long as there are no FAA/EASA engineers stationed in China, I'm not sure how Comac can achieve its goal.

EASA, Russia, and FAA will not give away a certification. What worries me is that the 3 recognized certifications have processes that cover the same basic concepts (although the Russian certification demands different information than EASA or the FAA). So how can the Chinese be surprised? The Chinese certification, as done for the ARJ-21, if it covers basic processes, should have taught everyone in China how to certify an aircraft).

Certification after the fact requires a repeat of the flight test program as certain required data wouldn't have been collected. For example, if the FAA expects certain 1.5G turns to have been completed with strain gauges to show the stress calculations are accurate, then if you didn't put on enough strain gauges to prove your analysis, you must repeat the test. If the right data wasn't collected on the cabin test, it is as if the test never happened. Very quickly, it is quicker and cheaper to completely repeat the flight test campaign and EASA, FAA, and in particular Russia, want detailed inspections (really, an old D-check) to verify how everything held up.

Miss an inspection, and repeat the testing so that you an prove every part held up.

Lightsaber

Didn't I read in another thread that China is taking Airbus and Boeing hostage to get the FAA and EASA to sign off on Chinese certification ?

Aesma wrote:

Didn't I read in another thread that China is taking Airbus and Boeing hostage to get the FAA and EASA to sign off on Chinese certification ?

Hostages as in people?

I worked with some American chemical engineers who went to China in the 80s to discuss a licensing agreement for certain petrochemical processes. Their passports were confiscated and they weren't allowed to leave until they had given the process designs to their Chinese counterparts. If that's still going on, then... wow.

Doesn't see anyones in much of a rush for a Chinese built DC9 ripoff anyway ... so they can probably take their time.

F27500 wrote:

Doesn't see anyones in much of a rush for a Chinese built DC9 ripoff anyway ... so they can probably take their time.

This isn't the ARJ, this is a different plane with over 500 orders. The question however is how many of those orders are genuine rather than the Chinese government forcing them to place an order.

KarelXWB wrote:

People insist Comac will go after EASA certification, but that's just as difficult as FAA certification. As long as there are no FAA/EASA engineers stationed in China, I'm not sure how Comac can achieve its goal.

They also claim they haven't given up on the prospect of getting ARJ21 to be certified by FAA yet although that is not their priority for now.

Kikko19 wrote:

Will it be far superior than any a320/737 as I read somewhere?

Call me a skeptic, but I would say no to that question.

Kikko19 wrote:

Will it be far superior than any a320/737 as I read somewhere?

Hopefully, It will be superior to A320/737 that are in service when the aircraft was proposed (As in A320/737NG), if they can achieve their goals.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Didn't I read in another thread that China is taking Airbus and Boeing hostage to get the FAA and EASA to sign off on Chinese certification ?

Hostages as in people?

I worked with some American chemical engineers who went to China in the 80s to discuss a licensing agreement for certain petrochemical processes. Their passports were confiscated and they weren't allowed to leave until they had given the process designs to their Chinese counterparts. If that's still going on, then... wow.

It's more like
" We won't let you sell your stuff in China if you don't certify our aircraft. And since we can't outright ban your imports, we'll just make it ridiculously difficult and time-consuming. "
Also
" Of course you can sell your stuff here. Just build a FAL and show us how it's done. Also no VPN for safe transmission of data because, you know, VPN's are evil. "

It's not just aircraft but, for example, cars as well.

chrisp390 wrote:

F27500 wrote:

Doesn't see anyones in much of a rush for a Chinese built DC9 ripoff anyway ... so they can probably take their time.

This isn't the ARJ, this is a different plane with over 500 orders. The question however is how many of those orders are genuine rather than the Chinese government forcing them to place an order.

The majority of those are options, with 169 firm orders. All but 5 coming from Chinese enterprises.

mxaxai wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Didn't I read in another thread that China is taking Airbus and Boeing hostage to get the FAA and EASA to sign off on Chinese certification ?

Hostages as in people?

I worked with some American chemical engineers who went to China in the 80s to discuss a licensing agreement for certain petrochemical processes. Their passports were confiscated and they weren't allowed to leave until they had given the process designs to their Chinese counterparts. If that's still going on, then... wow.

It's more like
" We won't let you sell your stuff in China if you don't certify our aircraft. And since we can't outright ban your imports, we'll just make it ridiculously difficult and time-consuming. "
Also
" Of course you can sell your stuff here. Just build a FAL and show us how it's done. Also no VPN for safe transmission of data because, you know, VPN's are evil. "

It's not just aircraft but, for example, cars as well.

Pressure tactics and extortion sometimes work in the short run. However, the aeronautics industry is very sophisticated, requires a great time horizon and also presents many risks. It seems that the Chinese approach of compensating for its relative backwardness is not working as planned by the high bureaucracy.

Charging China's strict compliance with WTO agreements may be a way to level the competition rules a bit.

AirInsight noticed that flight activities have stalled:

News from Singapore suggests that the C919 might be delayed again. Tracking, using Flightradar24, of the flight test aircraft show that B-001A last had activity on December 19 and there is nothing on B-001C. The second C919, B-001C had its first flight of 2018 on January 14th. The aircraft took off from Shanghai Pudong International Airport at 7:38 a.m. and landed at 10:33 after a flight of two hours and 55 minutes. A Bloomberg article points out that this flight test program is much slower than Western programs and even slower than one might have expected from an aircraft from COMAC.

https://www.airinsight.com/c919-delayed-again/

Meanwhile, the MC-21 has completed more than half of its certification reuqirements:

"In terms of completing the certification work for the MC-21, we have the first half of 2019, "Neradko said to the publication." The

head of Rosaviation also noted that as of the end of January 2018, the department received 540 applications for certification, of which 286 had already been completed. He said, there was not a single breakdown or delay in the certification work.

I am guessing that eventually if the C919 follows the path of the ARJ21, it will be the MC-21 they will license to produce in China, in the end both Russia and China's goal is to end their dependence on A and B, and at least one of them will be able to do it.