Astral From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 214 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7689 times:
COMAC of China has released initial data on its C919, and mostly in graphic form. Other than fuselage size comparison with B737 and A320, The C919 length is 38.57 m, wing span 36.07 m and a height of 12.56 m. There is also a performance data comparison chart too. The more interesting part would be the cockpit design. Similar to Airbus concept, C919 will use FBW side-stick control, with optional HUD. Although COMAC is using the Chinese word 'considering' in the cockpit design chart, however, it is understood those are confirmed features. These would include cabin monitoring system, satellite based navigation, communication, and air traffic control, plus next generation flight/voice data recorder.
COMAC is aiming stright at competing for replacement of B737 and A320 in international market. With both Boeing and Airbus still don't have any new replacement on the horizon, COMAC would take a big time lead ahead. With COMAC closer relationship with Airbus (when compare to with Boeing), don't be surprised that Airbus would team up with COMAC and use the C919 as a direct A320/319 replacement choice, with joint production in both China and Europe. This would save Airbus huge amount of money and time.
The above are officially released by COMAC in Chinese, and I am sure all of you, especially the professional persons should quite easily understand just by reading it.
R2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2274 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7485 times:
Looks like pretty much the same cross-section as the A320. Which is as expected; in a 3x3 there's not much room for imagination there. Any info on range, payload, ...? Anything interesting being said in the Chinese text?
Astral From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7378 times:
Opps, I missed the Performance Comparison Chart. Please see below -
Translation for Chinese items text from top to bottom: Seating (2/Single Class), Maximum Take-off Weight, Maximum Landing Weight, Maximum Designed Range (Standard/Extend Range Versions), Crusing Speed, Maximum Operating Speed, Maxium Operating Altitude, Passenger Cabin Pressure Altitude, Initial Cruise Altitude, Take-off Distance, Landing Distance, Approach Speed, Commercial Weight Per Seat.
Hope that would help. Do note COMAC already announce 80% of the C919 would be composed of 'foreign articles', and they are aiming for 55% domestic Chinese contains when the C919 enters into the growth extended fuselage 199 seats version later. So far no word on engine choice, but again as far as I know, GE is leading.
Astral From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7292 times:
Don't know the cost of owernship as yet, but COMAC has publicly announced that the C919 would be 'much' less expensive than B737-7 and A320. As far as I know it would be at least 35% less. However, we all know listed prices are very different from actually what an owner would actually pay, so -- ??
What COMAC wants is a more efficient engine to offer better fuel burn advantages and less carbon emission to an extend of 25% less than current aircrafts. So -- ??
Knowing how Chinese do business, and China wants the C919 to be successful, the launch customers, other than Chinese operators, WILL enjoy a very attractive offer.
Miller22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 707 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7231 times:
With everybody arguing about supposed WTO violations with Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, and Embraer, how is this aircraft even going to be allowed to be sold with the ridiculous amounts of subsidies that are inevitable?
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6363 posts, RR: 56 Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7122 times:
Quoting Sandyb123 (Reply 3): So it performs about the same or worse in almost all corners? What's the competitive advantage of this aircraft? Do we know anything about costs to buy / own?
Why would you neccessarily want to increase figures with the new plane? Their main market is to operators who already operate the 737/320. If that is what the airlines need for that market then thats fine. No point in creating a plane that sized that can do ultra-longhaul flights or has a much higher MTOW if thats not what the airlines want. The 737 and 320 are both very successful and if COMAC can tap into that market with a plane that costs less and burns less fuel then they will do pretty well. Even if they capture only 10% of the market, that is still a fairly large number considering how many planes of this size/capability are flying today.
Sandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 894 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7045 times:
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 7): Why would you neccessarily want to increase figures with the new plane? Their main market is to operators who already operate the 737/320.
I think they'll find it hard to offer this product as competition to the 737 / A320 (and the E190 / C Series) where it is already established (fleet commonality, support, crew etc), however they might do better in developing regions. In Europe, the Middle East and America they'll find it difficult to gain market share where the Airbus / Boeing (and increasingly Embraer) product is strong.
How so? The fuselage cross-section is a little different. The COMAC is slightly more oval, with a cabin height of 2.25m versus the 2.22m of the A320.
We cannot really rely on impressions of what the aircraft looks like at this point - look what happened to the sharkfin on the 787. From what we can see though, they went for winglets, not wingtip fences, and that vertical stab looks like it was taken out of the A330/340. The nose bears no resemblance to the A320. Again, I do not expect the final aircraft to look exactly like this.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 18 Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6955 times:
Quoting Racko (Reply 9): Airbus took the bait and built a factory in China...now they get what was inevitably going to happen.
They could have asked just about every other company that has built a factory in China, but they didn't listen.
Is there anything they could learn from the FAL that they couldn't learn from the aircraft already owned by Chinese airlines? I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem likely. It's only a FAL after all, the individual parts of the a320are not made in China IIRC.
Francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3249 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6922 times:
Quoting Racko (Reply 9): Airbus took the bait and built a factory in China...now they get what was inevitably going to happen.
Not necessarily. But even if it did happen, COMAC will gain nothing from copying an airframe that has been in the air and sold for decades. If they want to be competitive on the market, they need to come up with an technologically innovative product that offers operational and cost advantages over the others. Carbon copying does not do that.
Quoting Racko (Reply 9): They could have asked just about every other company that has built a factory in China, but they didn't listen.
MDD went through that debacle, but honestly, the resulting product (ARJ21) was never really a serious competitor in the market, except maybe in terms of price due to the heavy government subsidies for desgn and production or easy financing through State Chinese banks.
It might have given them a 'crash course' in commercial aircraft production to catch up with the major western players, but there is a world of difference between playing catch up and being at the forefront of aerospace technology.
Quoting Astral (Thread starter): With COMAC closer relationship with Airbus (when compare to with Boeing), don't be surprised that Airbus would team up with COMAC and use the C919 as a direct A320/319 replacement choice,
I very very very much doubt that. Even if Airbus and COMAC worked in a close partnership to develop the 919, it will never be offered by Airbus as an A320 replacement. The A320 is a cash cow, and Airbus is not about to just give up their market share to anyone. If it does turn out to be a competitive product, it could trigger sooner-than-expected A320/737 replacement designs from A and B.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
CX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6363 posts, RR: 56 Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6893 times:
Quoting Sandyb123 (Reply 8): I think they'll find it hard to offer this product as competition to the 737 / A320 (and the E190 / C Series) where it is already established (fleet commonality, support, crew etc), however they might do better in developing regions. In Europe, the Middle East and America they'll find it difficult to gain market share where the Airbus / Boeing (and increasingly Embraer) product is strong.
I think it remains to be seen. If the C919 can offer fuel savings of more than 10-15% over the 737 and 320, then I think it does have a real chance. Not necessarily with the Southwest and Ryanairs of the world but it has a chance to do quite well. The Mitsubishi jet came under the same criticisms the C919 is now getting and although the Mitsubishi has not sold loads yet, it has a promising future especially now it has broken into the US regional market. If Boeing and Airbus were to sit back and let the C919 come to fruition and offer more than 15% fuel savings then I think it does have a very good chance to at least break even and make a profit....however what are the chances that Boeing and Airbus would sit back if they thought this aircraft was the way of the future?
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6737 times:
Quoting Sandyb123 (Reply 14):
Actually if O'leary can get a 35% cost saving on the 738 he might well be interested!
Maybe, but maybe not. FR has done very well by buying brand new aircraft at a huge discount, getting good use out of them for about 5-6 years and then selling them on to other carriers. The big unknown here is residual values and reliability.
Astral From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6610 times:
In terms of final design, COMAC has already frozen the design of the nose section, plus full scale mock-up was finished quite early, they are now in the process of making the actual nose section. So far the nose is totally different from that of the A320/B737, and the information I gained is that the tail section too would be quite different, thus making the C919 having its own unique shape.
I believe COMAC in addition to getting a better fuel economy engine, it is doing its best to gain maximum aerodynamic design efficiency. Coupled with a new generation engine, the end results in fuel burn improvement can be realized. COMAC knows very well that so far they have no control on the engine part, but has 100% control over the aerodynamic and structural designs. We all can agree that both the B737/A320 aerodynamic and structural designs are 'aged', and there is really not much more improvement Airbus and Boeing can do. That is what would make the C919 highly competitive in the future.
COMAC has indicated many times before that the C919 is for 'replacing' the B737/A320 class aircraft. So it is of no surprise that the performance data would be similar, the main feature points would be fuel burn efficiency, low CO2 emission, and low ownership and operating cost. I must stress again that 80% of C919 are composed of 'foreign articles', so certification and maintenance would be relatively easy, making the C919 a very saleable product.
R2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2274 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6370 times:
Even if the C919 "only" matches the 737 and A320 in performance, it would already be significant, as it would send the message that the Chinese are hot on A&B's heels.
Sure, perhaps support for this a/c will not be as good as A&B's, and it might not sell at all in the West, but the West is no longer everything. The C919 will very likely have a lower price tag than the 737 / A320 and could sell a couple hundred not just in China, but in many developing countries where China is gaining more and more influence.
All these facts alone already make the program worthwhile. If, on top of that, they could deliver operational savings, all the better for the future of the program.