Being on a competitor aircraft is not an issue for engine manufacturers, on the contrary, that way whatever happens they get a piece of the pie. However since the avowed goal of China and Russia is to produce their own state of the art engine for this plane, helping them have a successful frame might be ill advised. If the aircraft fails and only gets token sales, then they're good with Airbus' and Boeing's offerings.
The US is trying to prevent technology transfer in an ITAR category (jet engines), but I cannot find the current status.
The engine is the long lead time item for an aircraft. Even developing a quick change over, like for the A330NEO, took years.
A330NEO launched in July 2014, but I would speculate RR was already starting engineering of the conversion.https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... 0-900.html
First flight was October of 2017: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... light.html
So even with an easy transition, it is 3 years. If there is a fan diameter change, that adds another year. If the core needs to be resized, you add yet another year or two. Pretty soon you are at the 8 years I believe is needed to develop a new engine, once the concept is locked down.
China is big on a C919 and a "widebody" (C929) engine. What incentive do Western companies have to share engine manufacturing and development technology if that results in just being pushed out of the business in say 8 years? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKBN2AX0OZ
The MC-21 has flown with Russian PD-14 engines. They could develop an engine, but not in time for a 2025 first flight, in my opinion: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/12/ ... ine-a72364
Getting a commercial airliner to the point that it's actually delivering revenue miles to a commercial airliner is an extremely difficult process. Witness their efforts on the C919, which is a rather traditional platform for the mid sized narrow body market that uses fairly typical construction techniques. It is expecting it's first delivery before the end of this year, with only a precious few planned for the next two years. This is after well over a decade of development, which started with a predecessor, the ARJ-21, that was heavily based on the venerable DC-9 series, which has its roots over 50 years in the past.
In my opinion, by the time COMAC gets the C919 into a real revenue positive production tempo, it will be rather deeply behind the development curve in it's market segment. That being the case, I'm not very optimistic for the potential of the C929 to be a success outside of the various related captive markets that it's intended for. Of course, that may be enough. In a decade, it's expected that that market will make up over a third of the population of the planet, so, critical mass can likely be achieved there no matter what.
This is an understatement. The required dispatch reliability went up during the pandemic as all the engine makers improved their game.
Pratt is at 99.98% on the GTFs now: https://50skyshades.com/news/manufactur ... -Jets%20E2
CFM is not a step behind (actually, I think they were first to this reliability): https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/engines/ ... nce%20time
The old CFM-56, with less predictive maintenance is "only" at 99.96% dispatch reliability. Think about that... many old, shall we say maintained as required engines out there by dozens of airlines with a large variety of maintenance expertise, and yet the engine is dang bullet-proof.https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press-ar ... %20reasons
I cannot find ARJ-21 dispatch reliability. That tells me it is not up to standards. We had a thread where the ARJs just not producing the hours (per airframe) expected of a reliable RJ (thread in 2017):viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1363021
Widebodies are very sensitive to fuel burn and ammenities. I have no doubt the C929 will be developed. But what engine? To fly in 2025, an existing engine must be adopted and contract signed by mid-next year. (absolute latest a year from now). What terms are the Chinese offering? Boeing and Airbus do not demand technology transfer nor work share, that takes time and raises concerns and also must go through the ITAR process (jet engines are considered a weapons technology).
They must overcome one major concern:The Chinese defense industrial base is infamous for its tendency to “borrow” from foreign designs, particularly in the aerospace industry. Almost the entirety of China’s modern fighter fleet have either borrowed liberally from or directly copied foreign models.
China could use its bourgeoning civilian jet industry as a springboard from which to derive military applications.https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... ine-192935
Please recall the Mig-15 and later MIGs was enabled by one RR engine technology transfer: https://aviationdoctor.wordpress.com/20 ... orean-peo/
While this is a commercial aircraft, I've worked proposals to put a triple row fan on commercial engines (with new low turbine), with an augmentor (proper term for an after-burner) to make quick fighter engines. Since it is easier to scale down than up, I think technology transfer concerns might delay export licences.
Most likely, the combined Russian/Chinese engine will power the aircraft, but that is speculation on my part.
This means they will have to produce a reliable, serviceable airframe and most likely the longer lead time engine. The last I heard was 2018:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKCN1NC179“But right now Russia’s United Engine Corporation and the Aero Engine Corporation of China (AECC) are also cooperating on creating a new engine,” he said, on the sidelines of Airshow China, where it unveiled a life-size model of the CR929’s cabin.