• 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11
 
alfa164
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Tue Nov 01, 2016 4:12 pm

atypical wrote:
The problem here is that we have two manufacturers joining forces but neither has designed and built a modern aircraft in any quantity to even form a baseline assessment. Further there is no indication the weakest link can't break the whole model. For (a potential) example, a COMAC supplier going out of business with no alternative for replacing a vital part. Unfortunately or not most western customers are going to demand a lot more insight start to finish to make up for so many unknowns. A lot of airlines will not be able to justify to stockholders buying a large airliner from an entity basically producing its very first model. Even though the companies producing the aircraft are established it does not mean each will be using its strengths rather than weaknesses. I am not saying this will not work but to be successful they will need to provide transparency that Boeing and Airbus do not, at least until they have established themselves.

Exactly! And I don't think "transparency" translates well into either Chinese or Russian.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9723
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Tue Nov 01, 2016 4:25 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
JeremyB wrote:
It looks like a 787-9 with the wings of the A350.

. It might be nice to see what they could come up with on their own :roll:


You are seeing it. Absolutely nothing.

There are many talented engineers with up to date skills from Russia and China. Their most likely employers? Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed etc.

Besides, the most important parts of this are fine-tuning engineering and long term logistical support. Basically absent in the second world.
 
User avatar
LH748
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:44 am

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Tue Nov 01, 2016 4:27 pm

There's hardly any better way to burn money
306 310 318 319 320 321 333 343 388 ATR72 733 737 738 739 743 744 748 752 753 763 764 772 77W 788 CRJ7 CRJ9 E170 F100 MD11 RJ1H
AA AB AC AF AK AZ BA DE DL EW FD FR HF HG IB IR MF KU LH LT LX OD TG TK TP UA VJ VN WN W6 YP YW
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18970
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: RE: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:44 pm

IndianicWorld wrote:
I do think that as Russia and China pull together to create an Airbus like structure they may well gain some success over time.

Each has their own strengths and may well be able to develop a solid base over time, which is also supported by having a fair bit of power over decision making at the airlines in each of their respective countries  

I wouldn't laugh this off just yet.


I won't laugh this off either. I'm old enough to remember when Toyota and Nissan made cheap rust buckets and Honda only made motorcycles.

I think the problems are the ones mentioned earlier, a strong dependency on Western engines and avionics, which is a bad thing when you combine it with political structures that are in competition with the West, along with some aspects of aerodynamics and maintainability that are a bit behind. If I'm running a Western airline I don't want to find out one morning that my access to spares is now under embargo.

I think advances are being made via SSJ etc but there's still a lot of ground to cover. Heck, it was hard enough for an established Western vendor like BBD to get orders for the C Series, I think it'll be harder for these vendors due to the potential of political problems.

lightsaber wrote:
Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 14):Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5):
I'm starting to hear very ARJ-21 like notes of 'hit the milestones' engineering.

What does that mean?
It mean early milestones are met no matter how much work is pushed to a later time. Look at the ARJ-21, it had a first flight despite the amount of redesign required.

The C919 is heading down the same path where instead of halting assembly, production continues. This happened with the 787 and the delays of 'milestone engineering' cost Boeing Billions.

The ARJ-21 is an extreme example of this.


And it seems MRJ is too. Moving the avionics bay from the tail to under the cabin after you've done first flight suggests so to me.

pvjin wrote:
Quoting LTenEleven (Reply 1):These two want to come together and build a widebody. I doubt the guys and girls in Toulouse and Chicago are losing much sleep.

I doubt the guys and girls at Boeing were losing their sleep either when Airbus introduced A300, and later A320. Skies might look very different in a couple of decades from now, just as they now look very different from what they were in the early 80's.


Indeed, but a lot depends on what ends up being produced. A300 especially in its earliest forms had a hard time making a market for itself. A320 showed up as a better 727 replacement than the 737 and found a market right away.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5051
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:36 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
JeremyB wrote:
It looks like a 787-9 with the wings of the A350.

I was just thinking that it looked like some weird amalgamation of a 777 and 787 on the fuselage (more of a 777 nose and 787 body) with a total A350 ripoff wing. It's like what the Chinese have done with the J-20 and J-31 (especially the J-31) being obvious copies from the F-22, F-35, and Eurofighter in various aspects. It might be nice to see what they could come up with on their own :roll:

What were you expecting? A biplane? There's only so much you can do with a widebody twin-engine tube and wing aircraft, and given there are already 5 such types in production (A330, A350, 767, 777, 787) it's hardly a surprise that this one will have certain similarities to existing types.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5787
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:49 pm

A350ski.

What I have a hard time imagining is that the Russian and Chinese engineers will be able to get anywhere close to the empty weights of either the 787 or A350. Both incorporate extraordinary weight savings compared with previous airliners, and those savings were realized at the cost of a lot of sweat, tears, and schedule delays. I see this as being just what Burkhard said -- a competitor to a 15-year-old A330, or maybe a bold advance from the MD-11.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: RE: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:40 pm

LAXDESI wrote:
Quoting motorhussy (Reply 13):I'd see the best potential for this plane if they optimised the capacity at a 9-abreast 788 size with a smaller variant at 763 size. Pitch it where there is no competition.

Interesting to read in the article that they're basing it around the Il-96, an airliner with a fuselage width marginally larger than the A350.
The Il-96-300 is about 182 feet long, whereas the B788 is about 186 feet long. The wingspan is identical for both.
ll-96-300 is also 5000 lb heavier than B788, but should lose weight when it goes to two engines from the current four.


Let's just hope the Twin has Wheel Brakes that can stop it.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
2175301
Posts: 1275
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:17 pm

I doubt this will ever get anywhere - especially as Russia has a huge economic problem as their national budget is still based on Oil being higher than it is currently spending $Billions/Yr that they are not earning; and cutting future budgets by $Billions/Yr. There have been massive internal cuts the last year or so already (Russia of several years ago based their budget on $100 oil). The last time I looked (a few months ago) the estimates Russia is due to use up its readily available cash reserves in early to mid 2017.

Russia has already announced that the 2018 and 2019 Space Program budgets will be cut each year (I am not sure if the 2017 budget represents a cut or not over 2016).

To quote a very old American saying: No $bucs, No Buck Rodgers...

PR/Propaganda cost very little. Development of an Aircraft... $Billions.

I doubt that China will fund this alone... and the Chinese economy is not in the most robust position either.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:14 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
What were you expecting? A biplane? There's only so much you can do with a widebody twin-engine tube and wing aircraft, and given there are already 5 such types in production (A330, A350, 767, 777, 787) it's hardly a surprise that this one will have certain similarities to existing types.

V/F

I disagree. Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, and others all manage to come up with unique design elements based on what they feel is most efficient. They all look generally unique though, particularly the nose and wings. It shows a lack of imagination and innovation on their part, in my opinion. At this point, the 787 is getting close to decade old, meaning that more than likely by the time it enters revenue service, those design elements will be roughly 15-18 years old. From an efficiency perspective, they'll be starting on the back foot...just like they have with nearly every other aircraft China and Russia have developed in recent years. This airplane only has a chance if they do their own work rather than cheating off of their classmates' test answers.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:29 am

Very nice design. It looks like an upsized C-919 :)

atcsundevil wrote:
I disagree. Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, and others all manage to come up with unique design elements based on what they feel is most efficient. They all look generally unique though, particularly the nose and wings. It shows a lack of imagination and innovation on their part, in my opinion. At this point, the 787 is getting close to decade old, meaning that more than likely by the time it enters revenue service, those design elements will be roughly 15-18 years old. From an efficiency perspective, they'll be starting on the back foot...just like they have with nearly every other aircraft China and Russia have developed in recent years. This airplane only has a chance if they do their own work rather than cheating off of their classmates' test answers.


You are basing your assessment of this aircraft on a single photo of a model taken at a trade-show. The C-929 will have its own unique design elements too.

As for age of the design, you must be joking, right? The DH Comet had that kind of nose 70 years ago! It is hardly any secret that the most optimal aerodynamic design is a smooth teardrop-shaped nose. Why should COMAC/UAC design anything else? Artistic originality doesn't sell airliners.

atypical wrote:
The problem here is that we have two manufacturers joining forces but neither has designed and built a modern aircraft in any quantity to even form a baseline assessment.


COMAC builds the ARJ-21 and is developing the C-919. While the former has issues, by the time the C-929 enters service, both of those should be in full-scale production and service, which would give an indicator on which to form that baseline assessment. COMAC is also the company Boeing selected for that 737 factory in China just recently, so obviously Boeing trusts them. They also do a lot of work with Bombardier. A sister company builds the center fuselage of the C-series.

United Aircraft Corporation is the amalgamation of almost the entire Russian aerospace industry. They are the ones who are behind the MC-21, Superjet, Il-96, Tu-204, PAK-FA and the Su-27 family, just to mention a few. Don't mistake the lack of commercial success of their 1980s/1990s projects (largely a result of the economic troubles of Russia) with their ability to design world-class aircraft. It was a bunch of UAC companies that designed the nose section of the 787 and developed the composites from which it is made. UAC holds shares in Airbus, and Airbus holds shares in UAC. I think it is pretty fair to say that UAC knows what they are doing.

:)
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:41 am

It's quite amusing to see some of the comments here regarding the expertise, especially of the Russians, regarding airframe and engine development. Of course this is mostly based on ignorance of the Russian aviation history and development.

As of today Russia developed the highest bypass turbofan ever, IIRC it was the NK-80, developed in the early 1980's, as of date this is the most efficient turbofan ever built. Unfortunately, the collapse of the SU stopped its development. However, there are many elements in the upcoming PD-14 engine for the MS-21 that incorporates many of the lessons learned from the NK-80 and the PS-90 development. Even today the PS-90A can withstand 30K cycles on-wing maintenance just like other Western engines, and the cold section and assembly of the Sam146 engine is carried out entirely at Rybinsk plant in Russia, I dare you to name any other engine with the reliability of the Sam146 up until today.

As for the airframe side, the MS-21 boasts of using a revolutionary carbon fibre laying method, using a vacuum based technology instead of the usual enclave based one. The performance of the MS-21 will be much better than those of the current narrowbodies available, and if we know something Russians excel at are aerodynamics, it will probably have even better fuel burn numbers than those promised, just like the SSJ has shown so far. This new widebody will also be a CFRP wing design, so the evidence suggests this will be as competitive as anything flying around today. Russian and Chinese markets should be more than enough to make this project viable, and for sure with much lower acquisition costs.
 
2175301
Posts: 1275
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Thu Nov 03, 2016 5:43 am

Wayfarer515 wrote:
.


Actually, I think few underestimate the theoretical capabilities of the Russians when it comes to aerodynamics and aircraft. Their historical problem has been converting that to a reliable aircraft with appropriate manufacture technical and parts support outside of country.

I would also like to point out that any of the Engine Mfrs could build a much more efficient engine... by sacrificing reliability. Making an engine reliable enough to run for thousands of hours with minimal maintenance takes a big bite out of theoretical efficiency. But, its the trade off that the western airline industry prefers. So, yes, Russia did develop an engine with a high efficiency. I suggest it did not go into production and service because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. I suggest that the real reason was it was not actually reliable enough to put into commercial service. Otherwise the Design License could easily have been sold and making money to this day for Russia off of the updated derivatives.

I also understand that the MS-21 is not yet actually in production; and several years behind schedule (most new Aircraft seem to run behind schedule - so that is not a criticism of the Russian Industry). We will see how it really works when it flys. Lots of great claims about it; and I hope they are true. The Skepticism on my part is not in their ability to design and build a few such aircraft. But to be able to mass produce them and have them long term reliable with appropriate technical and parts support. Russia just does not have that history.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:36 pm

Investments up to $20 billion:

China and Russia will invest up to $20 billion to develop a long-haul wide-bodied jet, reports Thursday and a company statement said, as Beijing seeks to challenge leading Western manufacturers Boeing and Airbus.

...

COMAC said in a statement that the joint venture, to be set up in Shanghai this year, will develop a 280-seat wide-body plane with a range of 12,000 kilometres.


http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/1 ... jet-report
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
highlanderfil
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:27 pm

Re: RE: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:07 pm

Burkhard wrote:
From specifications, this could become an alternative to a 15 years old used A330.

I'd rather fly on a 15-year-old used A330.
 
Acheron
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

Re: RE: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:37 pm

LTenEleven wrote:
Let’s see the pedigree.

Russia:

Developed an SSJ that is barely selling at home, and otherwise to questionable carriers bleeding money. VLM is in bankruptcy protection, and Cityjet are taking delivery of planes they don’t know what to do with. Interjet may be the only exception.


Hardly related to the plane itself
Is developing an MS21 has overweight, behind schedule and not gaining meaningful orders outside of its home market.

Save for the market bit, you just described every Airbus and Boeing Project in the last 15 years.
 
c933103
Posts: 2835
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:29 pm

According to an Chinese report from year 2011, other than C929 they were also planning a C939 with max 390 seats. http://www.cn1n.com/sci/air/20110212/2047276084.htm
 
c933103
Posts: 2835
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:58 pm

http://www.minhangshi.com/news_2880295.html
Chinese reports quoting UAC president:
Budget US$13bn
Russia responsible for composite wing/tail while Chinese responsible for the airframe
2021-2022 first flight with western engines, and hopefully Russia can provide engine for the plane in 2030. MTOW ~250t
And then it quote an insider info that say China want to split the cost 50-50 with Russia, but Russia don't have much money so they want to focus on getting the project done with Chinese government funding ot 100%

http://fhuangzuze.cn/tech20161101/65643.html
This report quoted someone from Honeywell that UAC and Comac are ready to discuss with suppliers on it.

http://m.dwnews.com/military/big5/news/ ... 79630.html
Another report quoting Russian Ministers that say the joint venture would establish in late 2016~early 2017

http://xw.qq.com/news/20161101030737/NE ... 0103073700
And it is said that Comac is now preparing for C919 first flight which will happen in late 2016 ~ early 2017
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:39 am

c933103 wrote:
2021-2022 first flight with western engines, and hopefully Russia can provide engine for the plane in 2030.


So basically the plane should be fully ready by 2030. That's what, a development time of 15 years?

So they're going to swap the engine after the plane is ready, not sure what to think about that. It makes things more complex.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:22 am

KarelXWB wrote:
c933103 wrote:
2021-2022 first flight with western engines, and hopefully Russia can provide engine for the plane in 2030.


So basically the plane should be fully ready by 2030. That's what, a development time of 15 years?

So they're going to swap the engine after the plane is ready, not sure what to think about that. It makes things more complex.


Could it be 2023 thereabouts entry into commercial service with initial model C929-8, followed by C929-9 in 2031?
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
downdata
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 am

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:32 pm

Interesting to see its harder to put a passenger jet together than a freaking spce station in space
 
Noshow
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:40 pm

For some 2030 EIS shouldn't they better start some Blended Wing Body concept or similar right now? That might put them on top but not some rewarmed A350 clone? Otherwise when they will be ready they will be just too late again having spent so much money.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 12791
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:55 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
So basically the plane should be fully ready by 2030. That's what, a development time of 15 years?

So they're going to swap the engine after the plane is ready, not sure what to think about that. It makes things more complex.


I really dont think the time-frames are achievable, a widebody is an order of magnitude more difficult to deign, build, and certify than a narrow body.

Engine choice will be very interesting, the thrust class would be about right for an A380 or A330, and if Pratt have a GTF of that size by then its a whol;e new ballgame as the fuel required with drop by around 10% so less structure will be needed for the same payload/range.

The certification of airliners in Russia and China has been very difficult as both the manufacturers and the regulators dont know how complete the process.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Noshow
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Fri Nov 04, 2016 1:07 pm

Even now still before takeoff Russia doesn't have the money to do it. It will have to pay with something else: Widebody wing design know how.
This is what China truly is looking for and it will finally get it by doing this project.
 
c933103
Posts: 2835
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:25 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
c933103 wrote:
2021-2022 first flight with western engines, and hopefully Russia can provide engine for the plane in 2030.


So basically the plane should be fully ready by 2030. That's what, a development time of 15 years?

So they're going to swap the engine after the plane is ready, not sure what to think about that. It makes things more complex.

Ah sorry for being unclear, the original post actually mentioned that early production of the aircraft will be equipped with western engines for higher reliability and lower research cost before Russian engine available in 2030
 
c933103
Posts: 2835
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:40 pm

And http://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/2016-11 ... 9214.shtml say the earliest expected time for the plane to ship is 2026.

It also mentioned that the displayed model is a "baseline" model, and will come with a "shortened" variant and an "extended" variant.

baseline model range 12000 km with 280 seats, extended model will have range 9000-10000km with 350+ seats, shortened model will have range 13000-14000km with ~250 seats.

It also mentioned that "base on il-96" was Russian proposal, and is now discarded in favor of co-development

Fuel consumption will be 10% lower than other similar aircrafts

More than 50% composite material [and titanium alloys].

Comac claim the widebody project will remain open and invite bidding from around the world base on market principal with priority on suppliers with "rich experience, products have enough competitiveness, and willing to share risk"

And on http://tech.163.com/16/1103/09/C4UHM6V500097U81.html it's mentioned that a Chinese-made civilian engine for C919 could finish assembly by next year, but probably need 10 more years for testing and verification.bypass ratio 8-10, model image in link
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:58 pm

Here is another view of the displayed model:

Image
https://twitter.com/CNAviationDaily/sta ... 0235061248
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:14 pm

250-280 seating range, isn`t that the range of 787-8 and A330-800 that have not been selling well lately?

And about those photos, I am not sure if we can simply call a 787 with A350 wings a new design.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: RE: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:22 am

highlanderfil wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
From specifications, this could become an alternative to a 15 years old used A330.

I'd rather fly on a 15-year-old used A330.

Amusing. Sounds like the words of a 15 year old.
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
highlanderfil
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:27 pm

Re: RE: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:11 pm

neutrino wrote:
highlanderfil wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
From specifications, this could become an alternative to a 15 years old used A330.

I'd rather fly on a 15-year-old used A330.

Amusing. Sounds like the words of a 15 year old.
I'm so glad that I'm able to add joy to the life of an armchair psychologist. As far as I am concerned, I'll be staying away from all heavy machinery manufactured in my Motherland, beginning with cars and right through aircraft. Let's just say I happen to know more than the average citizen about the corner-cutting that goes on there.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11810
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Russia-China Proposed 250-280 Seat Aircraft

Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:43 pm

The Chinese will learn from the new chinese A330 outfit/ retrofit center where no doubt A330 NEO's will roll off the line later on.

http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/105117/20161102/airbus-a330-completion-center-tianjin-deliver-first-aircraft-2018.htm

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:34 pm

Another small update:

C929 JV formalized: China-Russia International Commercial Aircraft Company (CRCIC). COMAC, UAC are 50-50 partners. HQ Shanghai


https://twitter.com/LeehamNews/status/8 ... 1385050112
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
TheGeordielad
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:08 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:47 pm

I don't see this aircraft selling well if it ever gets produced.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:30 pm

TheGeordielad wrote:
I don't see this aircraft selling well if it ever gets produced.


Currently China alone holds 1/3 of Boeing's and almost 1/3 of Airbus' airplane backlog. Just imagine what harm it would do if all Chinese carriers would operate C919/C929 aircraft instead of A320/737/A330/787.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
alfa164
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:33 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
TheGeordielad wrote:
I don't see this aircraft selling well if it ever gets produced.


Currently China alone holds 1/3 of Boeing's and almost 1/3 of Airbus' airplane backlog. Just imagine what harm it would do if all Chinese carriers would operate C919/C929 aircraft instead of A320/737/A330/787.

1/3 their planes would go tech on a regular basis? ;)
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 1506
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:02 pm

alfa164 wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
TheGeordielad wrote:
I don't see this aircraft selling well if it ever gets produced.


Currently China alone holds 1/3 of Boeing's and almost 1/3 of Airbus' airplane backlog. Just imagine what harm it would do if all Chinese carriers would operate C919/C929 aircraft instead of A320/737/A330/787.

1/3 their planes would go tech on a regular basis? ;)

No. Your maths is off. According to what he said, that would be 100% of their planes...
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:36 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
TheGeordielad wrote:
I don't see this aircraft selling well if it ever gets produced.


Currently China alone holds 1/3 of Boeing's and almost 1/3 of Airbus' airplane backlog. Just imagine what harm it would do if all Chinese carriers would operate C919/C929 aircraft instead of A320/737/A330/787.


That's hard to imagine actually. The Chinese are just now getting an aircraft off the ground. It's almost like where the the rest of the world was with flying Convair 880s, 707s and BAC One Elevens. They're too far behind to catch up and make close to the amount of planes, both narrow and wide body, that Chinese airlines now fly and are ordering now.
 
downdata
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 am

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:27 am

rotating14 wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
TheGeordielad wrote:
I don't see this aircraft selling well if it ever gets produced.


Currently China alone holds 1/3 of Boeing's and almost 1/3 of Airbus' airplane backlog. Just imagine what harm it would do if all Chinese carriers would operate C919/C929 aircraft instead of A320/737/A330/787.


That's hard to imagine actually. The Chinese are just now getting an aircraft off the ground. It's almost like where the the rest of the world was with flying Convair 880s, 707s and BAC One Elevens. They're too far behind to catch up and make close to the amount of planes, both narrow and wide body, that Chinese airlines now fly and are ordering now.


Actually, it's not when the 4 largest airlines in China are state-owned or partly state-owned. There are 566 orders or there about for C919, a plane which we still don't even know will fly or not. This would be unthinkable in almost any other country for any other manufacturers.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:12 am

downdata wrote:
rotating14 wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:

Currently China alone holds 1/3 of Boeing's and almost 1/3 of Airbus' airplane backlog. Just imagine what harm it would do if all Chinese carriers would operate C919/C929 aircraft instead of A320/737/A330/787.


That's hard to imagine actually. The Chinese are just now getting an aircraft off the ground. It's almost like where the the rest of the world was with flying Convair 880s, 707s and BAC One Elevens. They're too far behind to catch up and make close to the amount of planes, both narrow and wide body, that Chinese airlines now fly and are ordering now.


Actually, it's not when the 4 largest airlines in China are state-owned or partly state-owned. There are 566 orders or there about for C919, a plane which we still don't even know will fly or not. This would be unthinkable in almost any other country for any other manufacturers.



That's the thing. Do you think those fleet planners who know that the COMAC planes use more fuel than the A320 or the 737 NG on certain missions (in the hypothetical event) would dare say that to the government? If it took 2.5 miles of runway to lift off and fly at half capacity, they'd still have 566 or more orders. That 566 figure is all "we can make planes too. See, 566 orders." Yes, it's like listening to 5 year old giving you stock market advice but it's the Chinese government and they do things much differently.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:32 am

It greatly amuses me that the 100% government run airliner companies in China and Russia are given a complete pass while Boeing, Airbus, BBD and Emb seem to perpetually be in court over government subsidies.

Granted, it will be many years before either country will produce enough aircraft to actually be counted as competition but considering how litigious the other companies are, it surprises me that they don't seem eager to start anything.
What the...?
 
travaz
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 1:03 am

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:39 am

A and B have been locked in a battle for quite awhile over government subsidies. The Big 3 US have been screaming about the ME3 funding the regions airlines. Would A and B make a big squawk about government funding when in total the project is funded by the Chinese government? I see many political ramifications with a project like this.
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:41 am

travaz wrote:
The Big 3 US have been screaming about the ME3 funding the regions airlines.


Very obviously there is a big difference between subsidising an airline and an aircraft manufacturer...

JoeCanuck wrote:
It greatly amuses me that the 100% government run airliner companies in China and Russia are given a complete pass while Boeing, Airbus, BBD and Emb seem to perpetually be in court over government subsidies.


travaz wrote:
A and B have been locked in a battle for quite awhile over government subsidies.


So war we have no information how money will be giving to COMAC. Don't forget that A, B, E and BBD get money all the time from the governments or states where they have their factories, too. And totally legal. As long as these payments are not pure subsidies, but loans with a favorable, but not market-distorting interest rate, this is an accepted practice to stipulate growth. Many WTO rulings in the infamous A vs B and B vs A cases came exactly to this result. Of course there were also payments on both sides to "help" on company in an unfair way (ultra low interest rates, no interest to pay at all, plain subsidies), but the majority of the WTO rulings got dismissed because A or B just got regular loans from the local governments.

And of course all this mambo-jambo about loans and interest rates totally leaves out all the indirect sponsoring of all four companies by military contracts and funding for research at NASA, DLR and similar state-run organisations who then give their research results to their local aircraft manufacturer. And not forget the help of import-export-banks (on both sides) or just the loans with market-distorting interest rates to 2nd and 3rd world countries who in return place some nice aircraft orders, perhaps including some private 777/A340 for the local dictator/king/MP/whatever.

I'm not a fan at all of these two dictatorship-run countries and how they handle their economies, but at this point we don't even know how money will be allocated and on which conditions, so I would wait before going to court at the WTO (which both countries are taking part in btw).

Far for interesting for me is, how much technology gathered by Chinese and Russian spies is inside this jet. How much A350 and 787 is in this future MOM/small-widebody? I'm very cautious to write off the Chinese too early. Even the Russians have some small success with their SuperJet, one of these Russian death-traps is now flying for Brussels Airlines.
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:02 am

CARST wrote:
travaz wrote:
The Big 3 US have been screaming about the ME3 funding the regions airlines.


Very obviously there is a big difference between subsidising an airline and an aircraft manufacturer...

JoeCanuck wrote:
It greatly amuses me that the 100% government run airliner companies in China and Russia are given a complete pass while Boeing, Airbus, BBD and Emb seem to perpetually be in court over government subsidies.


travaz wrote:
A and B have been locked in a battle for quite awhile over government subsidies.


So war we have no information how money will be giving to COMAC. Don't forget that A, B, E and BBD get money all the time from the governments or states where they have their factories, too. And totally legal. As long as these payments are not pure subsidies, but loans with a favorable, but not market-distorting interest rate, this is an accepted practice to stipulate growth. Many WTO rulings in the infamous A vs B and B vs A cases came exactly to this result. Of course there were also payments on both sides to "help" on company in an unfair way (ultra low interest rates, no interest to pay at all, plain subsidies), but the majority of the WTO rulings got dismissed because A or B just got regular loans from the local governments.

And of course all this mambo-jambo about loans and interest rates totally leaves out all the indirect sponsoring of all four companies by military contracts and funding for research at NASA, DLR and similar state-run organisations who then give their research results to their local aircraft manufacturer. And not forget the help of import-export-banks (on both sides) or just the loans with market-distorting interest rates to 2nd and 3rd world countries who in return place some nice aircraft orders, perhaps including some private 777/A340 for the local dictator/king/MP/whatever.

I'm not a fan at all of these two dictatorship-run countries and how they handle their economies, but at this point we don't even know how money will be allocated and on which conditions, so I would wait before going to court at the WTO (which both countries are taking part in btw).

Far for interesting for me is, how much technology gathered by Chinese and Russian spies is inside this jet. How much A350 and 787 is in this future MOM/small-widebody? I'm very cautious to write off the Chinese too early. Even the Russians have some small success with their SuperJet, one of these Russian death-traps is now flying for Brussels Airlines.


Why is the SSJ100 a death trap? Care to provide some insight into this?

Back on topic, the reason for building this widebody is very simple, the geopolitical situation is changing and the Russian-Sino parternship have understood this very well. Discarding the Russians who have designed and built the biggest aircraft ever made is just simply stupid, and yes before you say something else the An-225 is a Russian design. By the way, I dare you to find out which Western widebody has about the same dimensions of a much more older Russian airliner, sometimes accusing just one side of stealing seems to speak more about the people who state this than what actually is happening in real life. Let's see in about 10 years time which country's airplanes we are flying in, I will laugh my ass off when all of you are boarding COMACs or Irkuts.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:22 am

Wayfarer515 wrote:
Discarding the Russians who have designed and built the biggest aircraft ever made is just simply stupid, and yes before you say something else the An-225 is a Russian design.


It's rather easy to build a big aircraft - it just needs large enough wings and enough power to get off the ground. The only reason there was never a competing design is lack of commercial application, as can be seen very plainly by there only being one of those giants flying. Even if it were 10 it would be difficult to see a business case. Sure people use it now it's there, but if it had to be developed today I doubt very much anyone would be willing to pay the premium.

Meanwhile, how far behind the Russians were on aircraft design was shown very impressively by Concorde vs. Tu 144. It doesn't get any more graphic. They tried building a carbon copy and failed miserably because Concorde was much more advanced than whatever they could put together. Their being a generation behind in tech has not changed since, as can be seen when looking at fighter aircraft and also the SSJ.
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:53 am

Wayfarer515 wrote:
Why is the SSJ100 a death trap? Care to provide some insight into this?


It's of course not. But this is what many people said when the demonstration aircraft crashed into the mountain in Indonesia. With my post I actually highlighted that now western airlines are getting it, too.

That reference to the "SSJ death-trap" was a light try at sarcasm...
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:03 am

My take on the subsidies thing is that it's much ado about nothing. China and Russia run government owned aircraft companies, but there are so many handouts in the west to pander to special interests, voters, states, communities, various government branches, briefcases full of cash, tax breaks, low interest loans, government investment in industry, military involvement....that it's completely impossible to weed out the public from the private.

I don't think we've yet seen one of these WTO or similar disputes actually pan out in any meaningful way...unless you're a lawyer...then it's very meaningful.

I was simply pointing out how quiet the western companies and their host countries are concerning 100% government owned competition to allegedly private western companies.

For example, the superjet is in direct competition with Emb and BBD products, and 100% government funded, yet not a peep from them. On the other hand, Emb is all over BBD about getting help from Quebec....which accounts for a fraction of the total investment BBD has in the CSeries.
What the...?
 
c933103
Posts: 2835
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:14 am

CARST wrote:
So war we have no information how money will be giving to COMAC. Don't forget that A, B, E and BBD get money all the time from the governments or states where they have their factories, too. And totally legal. As long as these payments are not pure subsidies, but loans with a favorable, but not market-distorting interest rate, this is an accepted practice to stipulate growth. Many WTO rulings in the infamous A vs B and B vs A cases came exactly to this result. Of course there were also payments on both sides to "help" on company in an unfair way (ultra low interest rates, no interest to pay at all, plain subsidies), but the majority of the WTO rulings got dismissed because A or B just got regular loans from the local governments.

It is written on their site that Comac is founded and funded by Chinese State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, as well as other State-owned Enterprise. So it can be said that the Chinese government is the investor and stock holder of the company.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1590
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Fri May 05, 2017 9:45 pm

Scipio wrote:
Flightglobal reports that COMAC is considering developing a 300-seat widebody as its next big project, and would like to work with Russia on this.

And if they extend that cooperation to working with Japan (and perhaps India & South Korea?); they would be a formidable force (a consortium much like Airbus) which would spell trouble for Boeing & Airbus, reshaping the commercial aviation manufacturing industry. But, not to worry, that won't happen because of geo-political issues/tensions between China & Japan/India.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Mon May 22, 2017 7:56 am

A small update on the program:

United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and its Chinese analogue COMAC (Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China) took another step towards the development of a new generation of wide-body long-haul aircraft, opened on May 22 at the Shanghai office of the joint venture that will manage the project. The new joint venture was called Sino-Russian International Commercial Aircraft Company (China-Russia Commercial Aircraft International Corporation , CRAIC). On Monday, the joint venture has received a license for business activities.


http://www.ato.ru/content/razrabotchiki ... -v-shanhae
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Mon May 22, 2017 9:02 am

Another article:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rt-437467/


Comac and United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) have established a joint venture company to develop a Sino-Russian widebody aircraft.

The new entity will be known as China-Russia Commercial Aircraft Corporation (CRAIC), say the companies in a joint statement.

...

Comac chairman Jin Zhuanglong adds that the aircraft, which will have a range of 12,000km and 280 seats, will seek international certification in order to access the global market.


It's clear that they will aim at FAA/EASA certification from the beginning.

The two parties plan to invest a total of $13-20 billion on the project.


Seems that the budget has a lot of wiggle room.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Comac Considering C929 300-seat Widebody

Mon May 22, 2017 9:05 am

KarelXWB wrote:
It's clear that they will aim at FAA/EASA certification from the beginning.


Doesn't it need to be in order to fly international route to Europe and America?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos