
Looks like a ripoff 717 to me.
I wonder if this plane will reach Western markets.
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
gizghor wrote:
Looks like a ripoff 717 to me.
I wonder if this plane will reach Western markets.
lightsaber wrote:We just had a thread on a startup airline buying the ARJ21:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1402249
It has been certified 3 years and only 5 delivered.
Those 5 fly an average of 8.85 cycles per day for all 5 (not per Airframe, each flies, on average, less than one round trip or two segments).
I won't fly the plane.
It makes the su100 aftermarket support look outstanding! (It is bad.)
Oh, we didn't discuss, but it appears the plane didn't meet range promise (my opinion).
Lightsaber
gizghor wrote:Looks like a ripoff 717 to me.
I wonder if this plane will reach Western markets.
gizghor wrote:
Looks like a ripoff 717 to me.
I wonder if this plane will reach Western markets.
BREECH wrote:gizghor wrote:Looks like a ripoff 717 to me.
I wonder if this plane will reach Western markets.
Just like high-speed trains which, by no means, look anything like Shinkansen, Siemens or Bombardier, this is yet another "fully China developed" and, of course, "patented Chinese technology". The difference is, unlike the numerous cars, machines, designs they copied over the years, an airplane takes a bit more than just copying dimensions and a few yester-peasants to assemble. The Chinese proved time and again that they can't copy planes. Look at their "vast military program". They tried EVERYTHING, from An-24 to F-35 (which was twice as good as American because it had two engines!), and failed on every single corner. They've built hundreds of universities and "techno-parks" and provided trillions in government support, but it sure looks like it just doesn't work. China still hasn't become an R&D country. They are still (and, in my opinion, always will be) the Abibas and Pawasonik state.
I do, however, believe that this plane WILL reach the Western markets. Most likely, in the form of a washing machine.
lightsaber wrote:No one copies aircraft well. You need to build from the concept to understand the margins, life (cycle and hours), and how to improve it.
lightsaber wrote:BREECH wrote:gizghor wrote:Looks like a ripoff 717 to me.
I wonder if this plane will reach Western markets.
Just like high-speed trains which, by no means, look anything like Shinkansen, Siemens or Bombardier, this is yet another "fully China developed" and, of course, "patented Chinese technology". The difference is, unlike the numerous cars, machines, designs they copied over the years, an airplane takes a bit more than just copying dimensions and a few yester-peasants to assemble. The Chinese proved time and again that they can't copy planes. Look at their "vast military program". They tried EVERYTHING, from An-24 to F-35 (which was twice as good as American because it had two engines!), and failed on every single corner. They've built hundreds of universities and "techno-parks" and provided trillions in government support, but it sure looks like it just doesn't work. China still hasn't become an R&D country. They are still (and, in my opinion, always will be) the Abibas and Pawasonik state.
I do, however, believe that this plane WILL reach the Western markets. Most likely, in the form of a washing machine.
No one copies aircraft well. You need to build from the concept to understand the margins, life (cycle and hours), and how to improve it.
Aircraft technology, in fits and starts, improves over 1% per year. Known is trusted, so improving an existing design's fuel burn 1% extends the sales life a year. The 738 had, between engine PIPs, airframe weight reduction PIPs, and winglets reduced fuel burn 10% in the first decade. Maintenance was reduced (3rd hydraulic system is the charm).
The A320 started with a 48,000 cycle and 60,000 hour life (what A320-100s were scrapped to). Now they have a 60,000 cycle and 120,000 hour life (most will be scrapped on hours).
What is the ARJ-21 LOV (limits of validity) in cycles and hours? LOV is critical as all maintenance is done at a third of LOV (or earlier) and inspections at 1/9th of LOV (c-check).
There are fundamental design issues with the ARJ-21 where they asumed items could take more (temperature, stress, vibration cycles) and they just cannot (aluminum has only improved a little since the MD-90 the cross section was copied from.
The MA-60 was copied from a Russian Turboprops with Western engines and it has been a disaster. A few years ago I saw a journalist article stating none had made it to the first maintenance interval (1/3rd design life) as in the checks, so many cracks were found, aircraft we're just no longer safe to fly.
The production process of aircraft is scrutinized and then scrutinized again. One crack induced during production can ruin a part. The attention to detail to make hundreds of aircraft work is mind numbing.
COMAC just isn't there. There is a huge difference between kit assembly, making parts, and being a systems integrator.
I'd love to know how corrosion is doing. e.g., Airbus received grief when Air NewZealand found brackets in the wings of their A320s were cracking. But Airbus jumped on it, found out it was due to the wing internals never drying in island hopping short flights and had a replacement material qualified in a year. The old material alloy is now banned from Airbus designs.
It is that level of knowing your aircraft COMAC lacks.
All evidence is pointing to the real service life of the ARJ-21 is short. As in old Learjet short as that is the low level of detail.
I won't fly the C919 or C929 either. Both are the beauracrats saying build this and the low level engineers either don't know to say change this or aren't allowed to.
The long gestration of the ARJ-21 was a clue to a bad design.
It could be the 5-across cross section is so stiff in such a short design that forces are amplified (often to strengthen a plane, it is made more flexible). Huh... If built at MD-90 specs, that could be the root cause.... I hadn't considered that before...
Lightsaber
BREECH wrote:What you can't blame China for is lack of ambition. What you CAN blame China for is the lack of knowledge... and good spies.
lightsaber wrote:China can learn. I saw their first examples of aerospace grade tubing... It wasn't. It was so bad we laughed at them trying to sell it.
But they listened and improved. We received a batch in error. We gleefully analyzed the tubing to find all the faults. It was just as good as anyone's...
lightsaber wrote:But aircraft ate past just flying.
lightsaber wrote:It is maintenance, fuel burn, dispatch reliability, and everything that costs an airline.
lightsaber wrote:The idea they might design with materials with variable directional strength scares me (CFRP and 3D printing).
n797mx wrote:gizghor wrote:
Looks like a ripoff 717 to me.
I wonder if this plane will reach Western markets.
Which I believe it actually does use MD-90 tooling. IIRC there was supposed to be a licenced MD-90 mod for China's unimproved runways but only one or two were ever built. The tooling went to Comac.
MDGLongBeach wrote:and I assume that Comac saw these plans and tried to copy the western made plane, but obviously didn't recreate (in terms of versatility at least) the dc-9 we all know and love.
BREECH wrote:The Chinese proved time and again that they can't copy planes. Look at their "vast military program". They tried EVERYTHING, from An-24 to F-35 (which was twice as good as American because it had two engines!), and failed on every single corner.
BREECH wrote:China still hasn't become an R&D country. They are still (and, in my opinion, always will be) the Abibas and Pawasonik state.
BREECH wrote:gizghor wrote:Looks like a ripoff 717 to me.
I wonder if this plane will reach Western markets.
Just like high-speed trains which, by no means, look anything like Shinkansen, Siemens or Bombardier, this is yet another "fully China developed" and, of course, "patented Chinese technology". The difference is, unlike the numerous cars, machines, designs they copied over the years, an airplane takes a bit more than just copying dimensions and a few yester-peasants to assemble. The Chinese proved time and again that they can't copy planes. Look at their "vast military program". They tried EVERYTHING, from An-24 to F-35 (which was twice as good as American because it had two engines!), and failed on every single corner. They've built hundreds of universities and "techno-parks" and provided trillions in government support, but it sure looks like it just doesn't work. China still hasn't become an R&D country. They are still (and, in my opinion, always will be) the Abibas and Pawasonik state.
I do, however, believe that this plane WILL reach the Western markets. Most likely, in the form of a washing machine.
chunhimlai wrote:
DC-9 MAX
N766UA wrote:I think the cockpit is hilarious, personally. The glareshield doesn’t even fit the shape of the windows and the throttle quadrant has items lifted from every other manufaturer piecemeal: Embraer parking brake, Boeing fire handles, Canadair flap handle...
Faro wrote:But it does seem to have good visibility...traditionally and apart from the Su-27 and a couple of other designs, the Russians and Chinese try to engineer as much visibility out of the cockpit as possible...Soviet style be it civil or military (look at the Tu-160)...too much transparency is never good for them...
VSMUT wrote:In the case of many Soviet designs, they never received all the technical drawings, and thus most Soviet era aircraft had to be redesigned by Chinese engineers. In many cases, these Chinese derivatives, even though they looked identical, actually proved superior to the original designs. Moving on, in the 1990s, the Russians had to admit that Chinese J-11s were superior in quality to Russian built Su-27s.
VSMUT wrote:Most recently, they have proven more than adept at clean-sheet military designs, ranging from the J-10 and JF-17, to the 2 new stealth fighters (which are NOT copies BTW, even if they make use of stolen research) and helicopters designed in partnership with Airbus.
VSMUT wrote:What a load of bollocks.
VSMUT wrote:Actually, they have become an R&D country. Globally, Chinese firms and inventors apply for more patents than any other country, and they have long since overtaken the west in developing new materials. The Shenzhen special economic zone is right up there with Silicon Valley when it comes to high-tech industry.
tphuang wrote:Producing something that looks like the 2 most advanced fighter jets in the world (F-22/35) using what you have around is not copying.
chunhimlai wrote:DC-9 MAX
BREECH wrote:tphuang wrote:Producing something that looks like the 2 most advanced fighter jets in the world (F-22/35) using what you have around is not copying.
Of course not. Thank you for proving my point, though.
BREECH wrote:VSMUT wrote:In the case of many Soviet designs, they never received all the technical drawings, and thus most Soviet era aircraft had to be redesigned by Chinese engineers. In many cases, these Chinese derivatives, even though they looked identical, actually proved superior to the original designs. Moving on, in the 1990s, the Russians had to admit that Chinese J-11s were superior in quality to Russian built Su-27s.
Is there any proof of any of that? A quote maybe of "the Russians" admitting "that Chinese J-11s were superior in quality to Russian built Su-27s"? Especially "in the 1990s".
And yes, they received full technical drawings. Su-27 or, rather, Su-33MKK were assembled and then license built in China. So were previous generation MiGs. And they were never "redesigned. Or maybe you have proof of that, too.
Two new stealth fighters which are NOT copies? Which ones do you mean? Because anyone blessed with the gift of sight can see that J-31 is the result of a conversation where an American spy tried to describe the F-35 to his Chinese handler over HAM radio in Norwegian, and J-20 is the love child of F-22 Raptor and a delta-wing they unbolted from their license-built MiG-21.
So what China did was they built an aircraft that could swarm or evade a thin line of thirsty F-22, destroy any non stealth platforms such as the F-15C and the F/A-18E/Fs if it had to, in effect breaking through to US support assets, mainly the vulnerable tankers and AWACS.
tphuang wrote:http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/56 ... show-debutSo what China did was they built an aircraft that could swarm or evade a thin line of thirsty F-22, destroy any non stealth platforms such as the F-15C and the F/A-18E/Fs if it had to, in effect breaking through to US support assets, mainly the vulnerable tankers and AWACS.
BREECH wrote:And yes, they received full technical drawings. Su-27 or, rather, Su-33MKK were assembled and then license built in China. So were previous generation MiGs. And they were never "redesigned. Or maybe you have proof of that, too.
BREECH wrote:Two new stealth fighters which are NOT copies? Which ones do you mean? Because anyone blessed with the gift of sight can see that J-31 is the result of a conversation where an American spy tried to describe the F-35 to his Chinese handler over HAM radio in Norwegian, and J-20 is the love child of F-22 Raptor and a delta-wing they unbolted from their license-built MiG-21.
seat1a wrote:MD87 style fuselage; CRJ1000 engines; weird rear service door a la Tupolev; two extra windows behind service door a la Boeing 727-200; low profile landing gear a la Cessna. Oh brother.
TheKennady2 wrote:I don't care if its Chinese, any new aircraft is a plus as i am sick of the Boeing and Airbus duopoly. Comac is a up and coming company that will mainly market thier planes to 3rd world Nation Airlines and Chinese carriers. The ARJ-21 is a T tail plane which is rare, i dont know how much the airframe can be improved but i dont think its a total piece of junk. COMAC is 10 years old, there is no start up that will get everything right within 10 years, Comac is a symbol of the economic and technological progression China is making. I been to China 3 times, its a growing nation and already a miltary and finacial superpower. Give Comac some time, they will improve.
Spacepope wrote:Um, the only Flanker variant with with side-by-side seating is the SU-34, which Ukraine does not operate.
gtargui wrote:Caution, this is going to be a long post.TheKennady2 wrote:I don't care if its Chinese, any new aircraft is a plus as i am sick of the Boeing and Airbus duopoly. Comac is a up and coming company that will mainly market thier planes to 3rd world Nation Airlines and Chinese carriers. The ARJ-21 is a T tail plane which is rare, i dont know how much the airframe can be improved but i dont think its a total piece of junk. COMAC is 10 years old, there is no start up that will get everything right within 10 years, Comac is a symbol of the economic and technological progression China is making. I been to China 3 times, its a growing nation and already a miltary and finacial superpower. Give Comac some time, they will improve.
Saying COMAC is only 10 years old is like saying Eurofighter GmbH is only 32 years old. Whilst technically true, the legal entities are only that old, the players behind the scenes are far older and have more experience than you give them credit for. Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) has been around since the 50’s and produced a lot of planes for the military.
I personally think both guangxi and chabudou will need to be stopped form ever entering COMAC corporate culture for them to succeed in the West (along with other things but that's for another day)
Chabudou can be translated as “more or less” but has greater meaning for some foreigners by extending to “it’s not in my job description”. An example is security guards not even phoning the police if they see a knife fight across the road from them, because they’re paid to protect their building and nothing else. Obviously I wouldn't break up a knife fight with just my baton but I'd still phone the police. If this gets into into COMAC could lead to serious safety concerns.
The second one is more complex. The best way to describe it is who you have relationships with. Example, my boss wants to enter a market we’ve never had anything to do with, but has a friend who has connections in that market so she will use her friend as to help her build those connections and she will have to eventually return the favour. There are limits to how the favour is returned. Don’t ask for a $5000 loan because you paid for dinner last week. Favours should be returned in a way both parties think is fair. This can lead to what we in the West would call nepotism all the way to corruption. “If your brother-in-law was suddenly promoted to regional manager in our regional branch, could you overlook our safety record and grant us the contract to build your next housing development?” Pretty self explanatory why this wouldn’t be good for parts procurement.
To point out, I’ve lived in China cumulatively for just about a year. I wouldn't claim to ever be an expert on Chinese business culture but I think through studying China, studying in China, and working in China, I have a better understanding than some people. I’ve witnessed both guangxi and chabuduo first hand in China and have also seen similar things like this in the West, but I feel like both are far more common here in China.
I’ll be happy to fly on a COMAC aircraft, being this one, or the C919 or C929 once they’ve proven they’re safe and I wish them the best of luck. It will be a game changer if they can actually break the Boeing and Airbus duopoly. Obviously planes crash, and people die, but if we have a decade where 1 in 5 ARJ21’s have broken up in mid-air, I’m not flying it. I’ve used the Chinese HSR multiple times and even though I know there have been accidents, so few deaths have occurred for the mileage covered, I’m more concerned about someone sitting in my seat than if the train will crash due to human error or design flaws.
BREECH wrote:Two new stealth fighters which are NOT copies? Which ones do you mean? Because anyone blessed with the gift of sight can see that J-31 is the result of a conversation where an American spy tried to describe the F-35 to his Chinese handler over HAM radio in Norwegian, and J-20 is the love child of F-22 Raptor and a delta-wing they unbolted from their license-built MiG-21.
tphuang wrote:You will see the true size difference of F-22 and J-20 when you put some of the pictures next to each other. The internal fuel volume and weapon bay are much larger than F-22. It's not expected to be as maneuverable as F-22. They are even going to be used in a different way.
Amiga500 wrote:edit: The ARJ21 is a joke. They were not ready to take on a commercial project of that magnitude, same for C919 - they need to appreciate their limitations and start with much simpler stuff. Like aircraft with <9 passengers.
zakuivcustom wrote:Amiga500 wrote:edit: The ARJ21 is a joke. They were not ready to take on a commercial project of that magnitude, same for C919 - they need to appreciate their limitations and start with much simpler stuff. Like aircraft with <9 passengers.
Ever heard of Xi'an MA60? Much simpler (It's a turboprop), yet that plane is as awful as it can get. And no, the "improved" version (MA600 and MA700) are not much better. At least ARJ21 didn't have any incidents so far (Although knowing the ultra-low rate that they're flying, it's not a big surprise, either). Meanwhile, ~40 MA60s were built, 5 are already w/o, along with 20+ accidents/incidents.
I mean, I would like to see COMAC being successful, also, but there are definitely growing pain, and the ARJ21 is simply not that great in terms of performance or possibly build quality. By the time C919 actually fly in mess, they would be dinosaur also. As for C929, let's just say, there's a reason why they have to get the Russian involved, b/c COMAC is just not there yet.
gizghor wrote:
Looks like a ripoff 717 to me.
I wonder if this plane will reach Western markets.
TheKennady2 wrote:gtargui wrote:Caution, this is going to be a long post.TheKennady2 wrote:I don't care if its Chinese, any new aircraft is a plus as i am sick of the Boeing and Airbus duopoly. Comac is a up and coming company that will mainly market thier planes to 3rd world Nation Airlines and Chinese carriers. The ARJ-21 is a T tail plane which is rare, i dont know how much the airframe can be improved but i dont think its a total piece of junk. COMAC is 10 years old, there is no start up that will get everything right within 10 years, Comac is a symbol of the economic and technological progression China is making. I been to China 3 times, its a growing nation and already a miltary and finacial superpower. Give Comac some time, they will improve.
Saying COMAC is only 10 years old is like saying Eurofighter GmbH is only 32 years old. Whilst technically true, the legal entities are only that old, the players behind the scenes are far older and have more experience than you give them credit for. Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) has been around since the 50’s and produced a lot of planes for the military.
I personally think both guangxi and chabudou will need to be stopped form ever entering COMAC corporate culture for them to succeed in the West (along with other things but that's for another day)
Chabudou can be translated as “more or less” but has greater meaning for some foreigners by extending to “it’s not in my job description”. An example is security guards not even phoning the police if they see a knife fight across the road from them, because they’re paid to protect their building and nothing else. Obviously I wouldn't break up a knife fight with just my baton but I'd still phone the police. If this gets into into COMAC could lead to serious safety concerns.
The second one is more complex. The best way to describe it is who you have relationships with. Example, my boss wants to enter a market we’ve never had anything to do with, but has a friend who has connections in that market so she will use her friend as to help her build those connections and she will have to eventually return the favour. There are limits to how the favour is returned. Don’t ask for a $5000 loan because you paid for dinner last week. Favours should be returned in a way both parties think is fair. This can lead to what we in the West would call nepotism all the way to corruption. “If your brother-in-law was suddenly promoted to regional manager in our regional branch, could you overlook our safety record and grant us the contract to build your next housing development?” Pretty self explanatory why this wouldn’t be good for parts procurement.
To point out, I’ve lived in China cumulatively for just about a year. I wouldn't claim to ever be an expert on Chinese business culture but I think through studying China, studying in China, and working in China, I have a better understanding than some people. I’ve witnessed both guangxi and chabuduo first hand in China and have also seen similar things like this in the West, but I feel like both are far more common here in China.
I’ll be happy to fly on a COMAC aircraft, being this one, or the C919 or C929 once they’ve proven they’re safe and I wish them the best of luck. It will be a game changer if they can actually break the Boeing and Airbus duopoly. Obviously planes crash, and people die, but if we have a decade where 1 in 5 ARJ21’s have broken up in mid-air, I’m not flying it. I’ve used the Chinese HSR multiple times and even though I know there have been accidents, so few deaths have occurred for the mileage covered, I’m more concerned about someone sitting in my seat than if the train will crash due to human error or design flaws.
I agree, i am all for new planes and competion, i was in China for leisure so i also dont know much about business practices of the Chinese, but in laymans terms i want Comac to be sucessful, if they dont have many saftey issues i would fly on one of thier Aircraft as well. Western Egos aside, i dont want to be to crtitcal of the ambitions of other Nations who are exploring new avenues of technology and business, sure there is back scratching in Chinese business but its no different than Corporatism in the west. As far as the Chinese HSR, i took 2 trips and i did not feel unsafe, yes the biggest Issue was that most people do not respect assigned seats, it was a bit of a suprise in contrast to what i am used to in Japan. All in all i dont mind the Chinese, they are moving foward and branching out more than ever, poised to be a Major superpower, some of their cuture and mindsets can use some improvement but all in all i plan to Visit China Again.
rbavfan wrote:Stolen DC-9 tech with smaller engines added.