Looks like a ripoff 717 to me.

I wonder if this plane will reach Western markets.

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

.Every time is see "Comac," I think of a chugger named Cormac on the kid's cartoon, Chuggington.

gizghor wrote:

Looks like a ripoff 717 to me.

I wonder if this plane will reach Western markets.

Make that DC-9. They had the tooling for the orignal serie, but it looks "nothing like the original", As Jeremy Clarson once said: Copyright doesn't translate well in to mandarin.

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

They have just delivered the sixth frame last week and Chengdu Airlines will use the aircraft to operate CTU-NNG route according to report. It seems like the aircraft will be owned by ICBC leasing and leased by Chengdu Airlines as opposed to earlier frames that are owned by Chengdu Airlines.

DC-9 MAX

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.

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.

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

ARJ21 is not a true commercial product, It is a "learn how to make an airplane" exercise -- by copying another design.

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.

(yes, I read the rest, too )

If only it was that advanced for China. We're not talking about Chinese planes being uncompetitive. They're not even half-way to it. They are literally at the threshold of aviation. They are still waiting for Wilbur and Orville Chang. The Chinese still don't understand even the basics of flight. And I'm not being (just) sarcastic. I'll give you a small example. One of the Chinese "advanced" fighter designs had two engines with a very deep "trench" between them. It never flew for one simple reason - if you place that "trench" wrong, the air between the two engines starts flowing forward (no idea why, if someone knows, do tell!) increasing the drag to the point where lift cannot compensate for it. They only realized it (if they have!) after they built a flight prototype whereas such basic problems should be resolved at the calculation or aerodynamic testing.

My humble explanation is that the Chinese simply don't understand the very process of research and development. In previous years, their "R&D" mostly consisted of buy-disassemble-copy. Everything they build was "developed" that way. Their space program is the pieces Mr.Khrushev gave them back in the 60s. They have no experience of actual research and development.

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.

China is such a big aviation market! Why waste time and money building small aircraft and not upgauge everything?

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

Welp, I had hopes for this plane (Idk why), but looks it won't be on Hawaiian Airlines' list of 717 replacements.

Tbh this plane always LOOKED like it was a typical Made in China product to me.

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.

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...

But aircraft ate past just flying. It is maintenance, fuel burn, dispatch reliability, and everything that costs an airline.

It is much easier to build an aircraft to early Learjet reliability and durability. They aren't even there yet.

You speculate R&D. I say junior engineers not being listened to. It might be the same thing. It takes tens of thousands of ideas to make a good aircraft. Millions to make a great one. It is the drive to find why, why, WHY?!?

The idea they might design with materials with variable directional strength scares me (CFRP and 3D printing).

Lightsaber

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...

And I have seen Chinese "quality control" at their automotive plant called Geely. A VERY serious looking young man was walking around the car, opening doors, looking at mirrors, checking boxes in his checklist and... paying absolutely no attention to the fact that the front bumper was blue while the rear one green. Two-tone?

You are right about improvements, though. They do listen to criticism and correct errors. When it's SIMPLE. Tubing or cars they do improve. IF you complain. If you don't, they won't.

lightsaber wrote:

But aircraft ate past just flying.

Not yet. Not for the Chinese. They are still at Antione de Saint-Exupechong stage. They still don't have a home-made aircraft that actually flies.

lightsaber wrote:

It is maintenance, fuel burn, dispatch reliability, and everything that costs an airline.

You are absolutely right. And when an engineer at Airbus, Boeing, Tupolev, Sukhoi, etc see a problem, they know it is caused by something. They know the trade-offs. They know where they can win at the least expense, monetary or technical.

Whereas in China the "copy-paste" culture is so strong, I doubt they can think that way. They are not the first to be lagging behind in aircraft manufacturing. Remember the story of B-29 transformed into Tu-4? Stalin ordered to copy B-29 exactly and forbade to change any single part. It even had inch-sized bolts!!! But it also meant that they couldn't use their own ideas to improve the Boeing design. Thankfully, that approach was abandonned and even if some Western ideas were borrowed (please, let's not get into that), they were re-invented and re-thought.

The Chinese have been copypasting since 1925. The USSR gave them car designs, truck designs, later aircraft designs and even spacecraft designs. Changing strategy is quite easy, if expensive. Changing the mentality is WAY more difficult.

China needs much more time to get their people to start thinking independently and not rely on looking for (read stealing) existing ideas and solutions. Whether they succeed is for the us to see.

lightsaber wrote:

The idea they might design with materials with variable directional strength scares me (CFRP and 3D printing).

How about pacemakers and MRI machines?

This is what it looks like to me:



Poor imitation of something better.

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...

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.

McDonnell Douglas built two md90-30t's (n964dn and n965dn, looks like both were stored this year at san Bernardino) were built by shanghai aerospace intended to target the Chinese market. Though, two were ever made and was much of a failure and disappointment. Some md80s were made over there too. I've talked to several MDD engineers who have said that much of the tools, and aircraft plans were left behind in the MDD/Boeing merger and neither had bothered to keep the old plans secret (probably cause they weren't worth that much due to the md90s unsuccessful run) 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.

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.

They didn't just come across the plans by incident. Comac, through various preceding company splits and mergers, is actually same company that worked with McDonnell Douglas to build the MD-80s and MD-90s under the Trunkliner program. If I'm not mistaken, the ARJ-21 is even built in the same building as the MDs were.

But the ARJ-21 is not a copy of the MD-80/90. They reused the fuselage and empennage, that much is obvious to anyone. Less obvious is the all-new wing, which is not Chinese, but Ukrainian, designed by Antonov. Then you have the CFM-34s and various other minor differences like the nose redesign.

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.

What a load of bollocks. 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. 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.
Of course, they had plenty of poor designs too, and at one point during the cultural revolution they refused to listen to their aerospace engineers and started pumping out hundreds of completely non-flyable fighter jets in spectacular F-35 manner. The ARJ-21, even if it provided valuable experience, will probably end up in the poorer end of the category.

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.

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.

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.

That part about military program just shows complete ignorance on your part. Why don't you stick with a topic you know about and stop being a racist?

They were given the full technology, production line to much of the older planes they were producing for decades. You can't copy something when you are given the full rights to produce it.

How can they copy F-35 when they don't the same engine, subsystems, tooling or design document or anything like that? 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. And if you are just concentrating on something like DSI. They've been experimenting with DSI since JF-17. DSI is also on J-10B/C and J-20.

Anyone who takes a look an unbiased look at j-20 will see an aircraft that's inspired by many past and present designs, but still required enormous amount of R&D to be put into production

chunhimlai wrote:

DC-9 MAX

Or DC-9 MINUS, as the case may be.

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...

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...


Faro

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...

On the military types, that was a matter of practicality, not a specific ideology against cockpit visibility. Making a canopy for a high-flying supersonic fighter isn't easy, so it is easier to do a small one (think of the Concorde passenger windows). And really, the Tu-160 isn't that much worse than the B-1, B-2 and Avro Vulcan, and Russian airliners didn't have significantly worse visibility than any equivalent western design. Do you really think that the Tu-154M is worse than a DC-9 or 737?

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.

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.

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.

One thing I agree with you on is...

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.

Actually they have not become an R&D country. All Chinese patent applications have been denied. That's why China created an internal patent system which is not recognized by EU, Russia or USA. I won't generalize but when CRRC tried to patent their new "Fuxing" train in Europe, the application was denied because it's only a cosmetic redesign of Siemens Velaro.

Shenzhen is "right up there with Silicon Valley" only in the Communist Party speeches at Politburo meetings. China doesn't produce even 8-bit chips, let alone anything above that.

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.

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.

chunhimlai wrote:

DC-9 MAX

DC-9 MIN
(sorry, couldn't help )

I am surprised the Wumao have not hijacked this thread and started defending China yet.

But back to the topic on hand, having spoke with engineers working on this plane and even the C919, they have said they would personally never fly it. In fact there was one company contracted to do work for Comac and their employees had to sign agreements that they would not fly onboard the planes because the risk is very high.

I think that when Boeing and Bombardier find out what there planes are doing behind there back, someone is going to be grounded!

Honestly, I think that the ARJ21 is laughable at best. The ARJ21 is at least a generation behind the latest aircraft available and they put it in service before it was even fully certified and developed. No carrier in the western world would fly this thing. An airline looking for a bargain would be far better off buying secondhand aircraft from western manufacturers that actually have support and recognition here. The ARJ21 is a half-baked clunker and there's no getting around it.

I'm more curious about how the C919 will fare because that seems to be Comac's golden goose.

I dont 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.

Looks really under powered. Especially if you stuck this side by side with a 717

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.

Lovely, pick out one part of my reply to your inflammatory comments. You simply show very little knowledge of their entire MIC based on everything you wrote.

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.

Chinese military exercises would show the local J-11s were better than the original Su-27s. The production line they got from the Russians were garbage.

And by the time they got to J-7G, a lot of differences from original Mig-21.

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.

This is hilarious. Do you see DSI on F-22? Do you see Canard or a LERX in front of the main wings? Do you see all moving canted tail fin or the ventral stabilizing fins and tail booms? F-22 has horizontal stabilizers. Do you see anything like that J-20? I love how when people just look at any large delta fighter jet with V shaped tail and internal weapon bay and go that's F-22. The aerodynamics are completely different between F-22 and J-20. It has more things in common with Mig 1.44 than its does with any American program.

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.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/56 ... show-debut

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.

When it first came out, a lot of defense experts were shocked to see how different it was from what China had developed up to the time which was a lot of shorter ranged point to point fighter.

tphuang wrote:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/56 ... show-debut

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.

The only thing standing in the way of Chinese air superiority over the decadent capitalist swines is the treacherous and devious Sir Isaac Newton with his Gravity 9.8.

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.

The MiG-15UTI, Su-27 and Mi-17 families are the only 2 aircraft (unless we include positively ancient aircraft such as the An-2 and Yak-18) of which they ever received full technical drawings and support for license manufacture (and even then, the Su-33 wasn't part of the deal, and they had to glean the design from a frame purchased through Ukraine). All the MiGs, Antonovs and Ilyushins were only partially received, due to the Sino-Soviet split occurring right in the middle of the transfer of technology. This is pretty public knowledge, although apparently not among believers in American Exceptionalism.

Further, they did assemble Su-27s in China, under the designation J-11, from kits delivered by Russia, and later the upgraded and unlicensed J-11B and D that were fully made in China. The Su-30MKKs were all delivered from Russia, and have been joined by the J-16, a ground-strike optimised version based on the 2-seat J-11. The J-16 is NOT however an Su-30MKK/MK2 copy, and has some notable structural differences, including conventional Irkut-style Su-27UB tail fins, rather than the Su-35 fins found on KnAAPO built Su-30s.
China never received support from Russia to develop the J-15, relying instead on a reverse engineered Ukrainian Su-33. The Chinese twin-seat J-15 is also very different from the Russian one, with tandem rather than side-by-side seating.

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.

Lol. Do you think building an aircraft is as simple as cutting and pasting parts from several vastly different aircraft? And you honestly claim that the F-22 is a canard equipped aircraft!

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.

It's the exact same fuselage as the MD-90, which you will find has all those exact features, including rear service doors with 2 windows aft and low profile landing gear.

[quote="VSMUT"]
China never received support from Russia to develop the J-15, relying instead on a reverse engineered Ukrainian Su-33. The Chinese twin-seat J-15 is also very different from the Russian one, with tandem rather than side-by-side seating.

Um, the only Flanker variant with with side-by-side seating is the SU-34, which Ukraine does not operate.

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.

Spacepope wrote:

Um, the only Flanker variant with with side-by-side seating is the SU-34, which Ukraine does not operate.

Behold, the Su-33KUB! Only one or two were ever made, so you can be forgiven for not knowing about it, although it/they did enter service on the carrier. Note that this side-by-side cockpit is of a completely different design than that of the Su-34, and it also features the nose-cone and IRST of the normal Su-33. The canards and wings are also different, not only from an Su-34, but also the Su-33. More or less all the yellow bits in the photo are different from any standard Flanker.



And that is also the reason why the Chinese twin-seater is so vastly different from the Russian one. Ukraine never had access to it.

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.

While I share the views of most people in here, I wouldn't underestimate the ability of the Chinese to learn.

Nevertheless I want to share a video I have made from an ARJ-21 flight last year on the first aircraft which was delivered:
https://youtu.be/0jnnE79RGt4

Hope you can get a glimpse of what it looks and feels like. I was positively impressed, I expected it to be much worse that it actually was (despite the 2 or 3h delay).

Regards,
Loran

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.

Sorry but that is complete utter bollocks.

Anyone that knows anything about aero engineering know they are unique and standalone products. You only highlight extreme ignorance (and more than just a little prejudice) if insisting differently.

In terms of aerodynamics, stability & control and structures, both are as different to any Western aircraft as the F22 is to the JSF. I'd assume the same applies to avionics.



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.

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.

I see the J-20 more as a high speed and somewhat low observable interdictor (maybe fighter-bomber) rather than a dedicated fighter. Although I've had several folks disagree with me on that with some evidence to back it up.

VSMUT wrote:...They didn't just come across the plans by incident......
tphuang wrote:...You simply show very little knowledge of their entire MIC based on everything you wrote......
Amiga500 wrote:...Anyone that knows anything about aero engineering know they are unique and standalone products......

Gentlemen, you are all being just too kind and nice; trying in vain to correct & educate the un-informed, ill-informed & mis-informed.
Simple ignorance can be cured but not when its contaminated by misguided obstinacy.
You won't be able to stop _ __ _ _ _ (fill in the blanks) from continuously embarrassing themselves.

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.

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.

There is also the 19-seat Y-12 which is actually FAA certified and flown in America.

As for ARJ-21 and C-919, it's a combination of vanity project + improving local civilian aerospace industry. Things they learn from development + production can also be applied on military project. They don't need to be commercially viable. Although C919 probably will be, because Chinese airlines will order it for political favour.

gizghor wrote:

Looks like a ripoff 717 to me.

I wonder if this plane will reach Western markets.

Stolen DC-9 tech with smaller engines added.

Bootlegged trash

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.

I think (and others here have said) Chinese business practice is pretty thoughtful, it is about cost minimization in a place where rule of law does not exist. Speaking of first principles they don't have.. rule of law... which means banking doesn't work. Which means you can't run a business the way we understand the word. It would be a waste to build a high quality product if you cannot own the trademark and build a long term reputation for quality. So the focus goes to cost minimization, often subject to foreign quality inspection. Yet this incentive to domestically enforce quality discipline (like Germany might) does not seem to have happened.

About R&D in general, I think this is another thing that requires different cultural and legal norms. JMO. It seems that in finance, Shanghai was supposed to become "the financial hub of Asia" many years ago, like around 2005. I heard just in the last few years it has picked up, but as of 2014 or so, it wasn't among say the 10 most sophisticated countries in finance. It doesn't even have a currency you can freely exchange, so that is kind of a problem.

rbavfan wrote:

Stolen DC-9 tech with smaller engines added.

Stolen?

Most of the ARJ21 production tooling was legitimately purchased or licensed-produced from MDD: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/md-90-trunkliner.htm
Most of the ARJ21 engineering was done in-house. Note that since the existing tooling was probably a major design parameter, it stands to logic that the outside defining characteristics pretty much resembles the DC-9 / MD-80 on which it was based. Not much stolen.