What's new

China Civil Aviation, AVIC (MA600) & COMAC (ARJ21/C919/C929)

The following news is 15 months old.

========
AVIC's MA700 Program Faces Certification Challenges
By Bradley Perrett, AVIATION WEEK | Oct. 08, 2015

Obtaining Western airworthiness acceptance is looming as a key difficulty for the AVIC MA700 turboprop airliner program.

The MA700 has entered detail design, a stage that the manufacturer hopes will be completed this year, though it could stretch into 2016. However, there is no clear path for obtaining FAA or European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) recognition of the oversight of that work by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC).

Nearly two years after the program's launch, the schedule is unchanged. A first flight is due in June 2017, with first delivery in 2019.

Program executives point out that AVIC has an important advantage that COMAC has lacked in the C919 program: experience gained in developing and supporting similar aircraft. Prior to the MA700, the manufacturer made the 60-seat MA60 and MA600 versions of the Y-7 turboprop, which was an aircraft based on the Antonov An-24. By contrast, COMAC began developing its second aircraft type -- the C919 -- eight years before the February 2016 entry-into-service now expected for its first aircraft, the ARJ21 regional jet.

Delivering the MA700 to a customer in 2019 will not be easy, industry officials say.

To sell the MA700 in many markets -- including most of the large ones-- AVIC will need endorsement of the CAAC type certificate by the FAA or EASA. But the FAA and CAAC have not yet completed a program, reliant on the long-overdue ARJ21, that is intended to result in the U.S. agency recognizing its Chinese counterpart's capabilities in this area. Meanwhile, the CAAC is already overseeing detail design on the MA700, raising the question of whether its assessments can be retrospectively accepted by the foreign agencies.

The C919 is in the same hole, but deeper. The CAAC has had to support C919 development over the past 4-5 years without that FAA recognition.

The first version of the MA700 will seat 78 passengers at 79 cm (31 in.) pitch, compared with 68 passengers for the ATR 72 and 74 passengers for the Bombardier Q400. That is an advantage, because many operators of turboprop airliners are calling for larger aircraft. AVIC eventually intends to offer an MA700 version with at least 90 seats, but plans now say that it will produce a 60-seater, which last year was mentioned as a 50-seat aircraft. The government has imposed that sequence on Avic because a 90-seater would compete with the ARJ21, which has the same capacity.

Perhaps 20% as many MA700s could be sold in the 60-seat version as in the standard length, a program official says. The shorter version will better-suit operations from high altitudes as well as from certain airports, such as many in Indonesia, with short runways surrounded by tall hills.

Program managers are sure that they have a strong concept in the MA700, partly because of its seat count and new Pratt & Whitney Canada PW150C engine. Dong Jianhong, chief designer, says the aircraft's price will be lower than competitors' offerings. The manufacturer is expecting economic benefits from fabricating the aircraft in China and using large structural parts instead of assemblies built from many pieces.

The big question -- as officials involved in the MA700 know well -- is whether the manufacturer can execute the program well enough.

AVIC claims orders for 185 MA700s from 11 customers, but Chinese state manufacturers tend to loosely refer to options and other nonbinding deals as orders.
 
I bet it is safer than ATR flown by PIA and Pakistan should look towards acquisition of some aircraft..!
 
The following news is about a year old. It completed its stress test.

========
China's MA 700 Turboprop Aircraft Completes Stress Tests
February 5, 2016

avic_ma_7_1454665737.jpg

AVIC MA 700 Turboprop aircraft

Aviation Industries Corporation of China (AVIC) statement released earlier this week, said, "The strength test of the MA 700 wing and fuselage combination is a large comprehensive test. The test mainly conducts an overall study on the force transmission characteristics of the main load bearing structure of the MA700 wing and fuselage."

China daily newspaper report last August noted that AVIC had signed contracts for 185 MA-700s from 11 domestic and foreign buyers.

"We plan to use the MA-700 series to take at least one-third of the global market for turboprop airliners within 10 years of deliveries starting," said Dong Jianhong, chief designer of the airliner was quoted as saying by the news daily.

"Compared with its competitors, the MA-700 has better operational economy, a more comfortable cabin environment as well as a number of greener design elements," Dong said, noting the aircraft will have the most advanced flight control system, known as fly-by-wire technology, which will be the first time it has been used on a turboprop aircraft.

The MA-700's major rivals in the international market will be the European ATR 72 series and the Bombardier Q400 series from Canada.

AVIC estimates that the global aviation market will need at least 2,900 turboprop regional airliners in the next 20 years, of which China will need nearly 350.

According to an August last year report by Air Transport World online, AVIC VP Geng Ruguang said, the MA700 will be off the final assembly line and will launch its inaugural flight in 2017.

It is scheduled to get an airworthiness certificate and be delivered to its first customer in 2019.

The MA700 is the stretched version of the 60-seat MA600, which entered the market in 2013.
 
...

The MA700 is the stretched version of the 60-seat MA600, which entered the market in 2013.


Thanks, but this last sentence is complete BS ! The MA.700 is a new design.
 
Thanks, but this last sentence is complete BS ! The MA.700 is a new design.
You know much more than me. We have to use our head, just can't believe everything that's published.

========
MA700 First Flight Delayed One Year; Delivery Not Before 2020
Oct 31, 2016 Bradley Perrett | Aviation Daily

xianma700lebourget20132096.jpg


ZHUHAI, China—The MA700 turboprop is now due to fly in 2018, a year later than previously planned, Avic said, forecasting deliveries no earlier than 2020.

The state-owned company is prepared to market the 78-seat aircraft on the basis of only a Chinese airworthiness certificate if, because of regulatory obstacles, it is unable to get FAA validation of the certification.

The MA700 is still in the detail design phase, an AVIC representative said. That phase was supposed to end in 2015, though there was an acknowledged chance that it could extend to into 2016. Describing the new schedule to Aviation Daily in an interview ahead of Airshow China, to be held Nov. 1-6 here, the representative did not disclose reasons for the delay.

Industry sources told Aviation Daily that the MA700 schedule had slipped in September. An AVIC unit in the program delivered a major engineering manufacturing sample, a non-flyable rear fuselage, in September. The timing was rather late for a program that was supposed to execute its first flight in 2017.

The MA700 will be powered by the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW150C engine, a new powerplant that AVIC expects to give it an advantage in the market. Low production costs are intended to be another advantage.

The big prospective disadvantage is lack of Western validation of the airworthiness certificate from the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), by either the FAA or the European Aviation Safety Agency. Many countries, especially those with advanced economies, insist on certification or validation by the FAA, EASA other highly regarded agencies.

AVIC can sell the aircraft despite that, because the CAAC airworthiness requirements are even higher than the FAA’s, the representative said. The FAA is working with the CAAC toward recognizing the Chinese agency’s competence, but the regulatory program has been delayed.

AVIC’s current production turboprop is the Y-7, based on the Antonov An-24 and now marketed in two versions called MA60 and MA600. The most valuable experience AVIC has gained from the MA60 and MA600 has been learning to work with customer airlines, the representative said. Other AVIC officials have, from time to time, said the company needed a stronger customer focus.
 
Good news. It would prove its value soon. Lesson learned from ARJ21 should help much

To be fair, C919 seems to be the test bed, not ARJ21. A lot of lesson still need to be learn from C919

Many expert already stated that C919 won't change anything in term of Boeing/Airbus Duopoly in Civil Aviation, the problem with C919 lies in 3 category.

C919 is too small, having a small capacity. mean they cannot be use as a milk cow that the same way C919 competitor (ie Boeing 737 Max and A320neo), which boths goes up to 200 + seating (A320 Cattle Class can seat up to 240 pax), yes, they are abit more expensive (actually about 20 millions more expensive) but they can host 40+ more people in a single trip, that represent 25% increase of gas-fare ratio. It means that C919 have a significant disadvantage on Pax turn around. And being narrow body short/mid haul jet, this is all the plane is about.

C919 still uses quite a lot of foreign parts. From engine to advance avionic, and even tho the aircraft is cheaper than the other, the maintenance fee will be the same, that goes back to the first problem, they have 25% less capacity, which mean each cycle. It strain airliner's operation cost

The third problem is that COMAC does not offer frieght version of C919 (at least I don't know that exist) it may sounded funny, but most aircraft prove their durability and reliability from the cargo version, not passenger version, that is mostly because it was not designed to carry pax and that's why frieght company can use them to more to the limit, kind of like how you would use a truck, instead of a sport car. Without a cargo version of C919, we will never know the true capability of C919, becuase no one will be dumb enough to suggest they test it out with a plane full of people.......

That is the 3 problem plague on C919 at the moment. Expert from Flight Global suggest C919 will achieve 5% of market share, compare to 45% with airbus, 42% with Boeing and 8 % for the rest of the field

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...ht-fleet-forecasts-single-aisle-outlo-428536/
 
Last edited:

can you elaborate more than simply saying Bullshit?

Which point do you think I get it wrong? Which point do you think is BS and why?

Otherwise, seems like what you are, in fact, is bullshitting.
 
To be fair, C919 seems to be the test bed, not ARJ21. A lot of lesson still need to be learn from C919

Many expert already stated that C919 won't change anything in term of Boeing/Airbus Duopoly in Civil Aviation, the problem with C919 lies in 3 category.

C919 is too small, having a small capacity. mean they cannot be use as a milk cow that the same way C919 competitor (ie Boeing 737 Max and A320neo), which boths goes up to 200 + seating (A320 Cattle Class can seat up to 240 pax), yes, they are abit more expensive (actually about 20 millions more expensive) but they can host 40+ more people in a single trip, that represent 25% increase of gas-fare ratio. It means that C919 have a significant disadvantage on Pax turn around. And being narrow body short/mid haul jet, this is all the plane is about.

C919 still uses quite a lot of foreign parts. From engine to advance avionic, and even tho the aircraft is cheaper than the other, the maintenance fee will be the same, that goes back to the first problem, they have 25% less capacity, which mean each cycle. It strain airliner's operation cost

The third problem is that COMAC does not offer frieght version of C919 (at least I don't know that exist) it may sounded funny, but most aircraft prove their durability and reliability from the cargo version, not passenger version, that is mostly because it was not designed to carry pax and that's why frieght company can use them to more to the limit, kind of like how you would use a truck, instead of a sport car. Without a cargo version of C919, we will never know the true capability of C919, becuase no one will be dumb enough to suggest they test it out with a plane full of people.......

That is the 3 problem plague on C919 at the moment. Expert from Flight Global suggest C919 will achieve 5% of market share, compare to 45% with airbus, 42% with Boeing and 8 % for the rest of the field

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...ht-fleet-forecasts-single-aisle-outlo-428536/

You may think you understand aviation industry, but you don't. I'm not an expert either, but i have spent two years of my life around airplanes.
First of all, no flight is ever full. 737 can carry max passengers between 180-190, A321 can definitely carry 220, but guess what look at their delivery numbers, they sold more A320s and A319s than A321. If we go by your logic, airlines must be VERY dumb to buy A320s when they can buy a bigger version that can seat more people and bring in more revenue, right?
And cycle costs are different. Smaller aircraft is designed with higher cycles in mind, meaning they would use more parts that time-ex based on hours or calendar year than cycles. And again back to the first point, no flight is ever full, thus having a large airplane i.e a321 without full passenger load would lose more money (higher fuel burn, bigger aircraft = higher landing fee, etc) there are many other factors involved that i don't even know about.
Does 737/320 have a dedicated freight version? No. You an definitely convert one in to cargo hauler, but not from production line.
 
Now this report says the maiden flight is in Feb, but yet to be confirmed.
It's good news.

========

C919 expected to experience maiden flight in early 2017
By Sun Wenyu (People's Daily Online) 19:58, January 06, 2017

View attachment 366414

China's first homegrown jumbo jet, the C919, is expected to have its maiden flight in the first quarter of 2017, according to Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China (COMAC), the manufacturer of the aircraft. The C919 was moved to the test flight center on Dec. 25, 2016.

The plane has gone through a series of tests after rolling off the assembly line in November 2015, including a systems integration test, static trials and onboard tests. Now the aircraft is ready for ground tests. An industry source said the plane's maiden flight is scheduled for February. However, the exact date has not yet been confirmed.

By now, the number of orders for the C919 has reached 570. During the Zhuhai Air Show last November, Shanghai-based China Eastern Airlines became the first company to receive the C919 model after signing a cooperative framework agreement with COMAC. China's SPDB Financial Leasing and CITIC Financial Leasing have respectively ordered 20 and 36 of the aircraft.


********

After the maiden flight, hopefully things will move quickly.
However, a plane is a complicated piece of equipment.
If more time is needed, so be it.
.


Cannot wait for Maiden Flight. :yahoo:

After COMAC ARJ-21 Success, this one too would become another China's Milestone in Civil Aviation Industry.
Congratulations for China and Chinese people :china: @Shotgunner51 @ahojunk

570 Order in the Beginning is a Big Success for Chinese people, and especially COMAC Industry.


Doesn't care about Butthurt people, just keep barking and trolling.
You cannot stop China's Achievement :coffee:

You may think you understand aviation industry, but you don't. I'm not an expert either, but i have spent two years of my life around airplanes.
First of all, no flight is ever full. 737 can carry max passengers between 180-190, A321 can definitely carry 220, but guess what look at their delivery numbers, they sold more A320s and A319s than A321. If we go by your logic, airlines must be VERY dumb to buy A320s when they can buy a bigger version that can seat more people and bring in more revenue, right?
And cycle costs are different. Smaller aircraft is designed with higher cycles in mind, meaning they would use more parts that time-ex based on hours or calendar year than cycles. And again back to the first point, no flight is ever full, thus having a large airplane i.e a321 without full passenger load would lose more money (higher fuel burn, bigger aircraft = higher landing fee, etc) there are many other factors involved that i don't even know about.
Does 737/320 have a dedicated freight version? No. You an definitely convert one in to cargo hauler, but not from production line.


Thanks so much for Explanation, sir :-)

Other members can see the difference between "Real Expert" and "Troller Wanabee". :enjoy:
Maybe he think other people is stupid. lol @grey boy 2 @Jlaw @cnleio
 
You may think you understand aviation industry, but you don't. I'm not an expert either, but i have spent two years of my life around airplanes.

First of all, no flight is ever full. 737 can carry max passengers between 180-190, A321 can definitely carry 220, but guess what look at their delivery numbers, they sold more A320s and A319s than A321. If we go by your logic, airlines must be VERY dumb to buy A320s when they can buy a bigger version that can seat more people and bring in more revenue, right?

And cycle costs are different. Smaller aircraft is designed with higher cycles in mind, meaning they would use more parts that time-ex based on hours or calendar year than cycles. And again back to the first point, no flight is ever full, thus having a large airplane i.e a321 without full passenger load would lose more money (higher fuel burn, bigger aircraft = higher landing fee, etc) there are many other factors involved that i don't even know about.
Does 737/320 have a dedicated freight version? No. You an definitely convert one in to cargo hauler, but not from production line.

Oh well, let's see

First of all, no flight is ever full. 737 can carry max passengers between 180-190, A321 can definitely carry 220, but guess what look at their delivery numbers, they sold more A320s and A319s than A321

Well, depends on where you are and what type of route you are talking about, short haul flight usually have multiple legs and are almost always 80-95%, you don't need to be full in one trip,but since they are short haul, you need to be max capacity or else you cannot pick up passenger that get on in the middle of the trip and get off in the middle of the trip.

While flight, as you say, is never full, EXCEPT in holiday, you still need large pax seating.

If we go by your logic, airlines must be VERY dumb to buy A320s when they can buy a bigger version that can seat more people and bring in more revenue, right?

You do know I am talking about Short/Medium haul aircraft, specifically, Boeing 737, A319/A320 Neo and C919, of course you can use a long haul to fill a short haul route,you can use a A380 to fly between Sydney to Melbourne, that's your choice. If you can afford to do it, yes.

And cycle costs are different. Smaller aircraft is designed with higher cycles in mind, meaning they would use more parts that time-ex based on hours or calendar year than cycles. And again back to the first point, no flight is ever full, thus having a large airplane i.e a321 without full passenger load would lose more money (higher fuel burn, bigger aircraft = higher landing fee, etc) there are many other factors involved that i don't even know about.

lol, wrong. Flight cycle are counted in a form of take off and landing, taking off once and land once complete a cycle, smaller aircrarft is not designed with high cycle in mind, the aircraft that design with high cycle in mind would have a strong landing gear, which you need to support multiple landing cycle, and that is the stuff most small aircraft is missing.

By the way, I am comparing A320, Boeing 737 and C919, they are more or less the same size, hence even if what you said is correct, they should have similar cycle and, hence, cost should also be similar

C919 (largest version)
-Wingspan - 35.8 meters
-Height - 11.95 meters
-Length - 38.9 meters
-Max Pax - 174

A321neo
-Wing Span - 35.8 meters
-Height - 11.76 meters
-Length - 44.51 meters
-Max Pax - 240

Boeing 737-MAX 9
Wing Span - 35.9 Meters
Height - 12.3 Meters
-Length - 42.2 Meters
Max Pax - 220

Unless you are claiming a few meters different in length will significantly increase maintenance time and cost, what you are saying does not make sense.

Does 737/320 have a dedicated freight version? No. You an definitely convert one in to cargo hauler, but not from production line.

Then what is 737-300SF??

Boeing 737-700C (C stand for convertible) they build with removable seat.
Boeing 737-300SF (Small Frieghter)
Boeing 737-800BCF (Boeing Converted Freighter)

Basically, all convertible is factory build, they build to cargo standard but allow removable seat on the aircraft, in the eariler year, this is where the term "Combi" Aircraft is. Boeing only offer build to production cargo converter, if you have a Boeing 737 and you want it to convert to a Freighter, you will need to bring your aircraft to authorised contractor (Like IAI, Pemco)
boeing themselves don't do it.

http://aircargopedia.com/pemco.htm

freighter-family.jpg


You can of course ask boeing contractor to convert a used Boeing 737 into a frieghter, but they do have production flighter, with both C class (Convertible) , SF class and BCF class frieghter

Oh, by the way, I was a Private Pilot, My wife worked with Sandinavian SAS airline as an flight attendant for 4 years, and my brother is a Boeing Engine Technician for 15 years.
 
Last edited:
lol, wrong. Flight cycle are counted in a form of take off and landing, taking off once and land once complete a cycle, smaller aircrarft is not designed with high cycle in mind, the aircraft that design with high cycle in mind would have a strong landing gear, which you need to support multiple landing cycle, and that is the stuff most small aircraft is missing.

By the way, I am comparing A320, Boeing 737 and C919, they are more or less the same size, hence even if what you said is correct, they should have similar cycle and, hence, cost should also be similar


Unless you are claiming a few meters different in length will significantly increase maintenance time and cost, what you are saying does not make sense.

.

Okay, First of all I don't think we are on the same page for some of my points. I'll try to be clear this time.

"For long haul aircraft, that make relatively few cycles, the design lifespan is in the order of 40 000 cycles. For short haul the number is higher, sometimes up to 111 000 cycles.

For example, the Boeing 747 has a design number of cycles of 35 000, the MD-80 has 110 000
."

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/q...e-lifespan-of-commercial-airframes-in-general



And i never said anything about maintenance time and cost being high due to longer fuselage. However the cost will be higher for a a321 carrying 100 people compare to a319 carrying 100 people. That is due to HIGHER fuel burn for a321 on take and cruise (because its a bit bigger) compare to a319. The airport its going may charge higher landing fee for a321 compare to a319 due to higher weight. There are many other factors which affects cost, but i don't know them all obviously.
 
Okay, First of all I don't think we are on the same page for some of my points. I'll try to be clear this time.

"For long haul aircraft, that make relatively few cycles, the design lifespan is in the order of 40 000 cycles. For short haul the number is higher, sometimes up to 111 000 cycles.

For example, the Boeing 747 has a design number of cycles of 35 000, the MD-80 has 110 000
."

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/q...e-lifespan-of-commercial-airframes-in-general

Umm, you said SMALL AIRCRAFT, not short haul aircraft.

Small Aircraft usually refer to Regional Jet, such as ARJ-21, Dash-9, Embraer Brazilia. I would not call a Fully loaded C919, Boeing 737 or Airbus 319.320,321 small aircraft. Airliner, in general (Big or Wide Body and Small or Narrow Body) are designed with long cycle, the only different is you tend to use more narrow body instead of wide body heavies for short haul, not becuase the heavies (for example Boeing 747) cannot take the long cycle. but because of financial concern.

There exist short haul route that make so much money, and been travel so many time aday, Airline uses heavies like A380 or Boeing 747 on them, route such as Air China Hong Kong to Taipei (appoximately 1 hours 45 minutes) JAL Toyko to Beijing (2 hours) and Tokyo to Hong Kong.

Also, I am comparing between the same category, not using a Boeing 747 on a MD-80, C919 and A321 is the same szie only A321 is 5 meter's longer, that's nothing in term of a 40 meters long aircraft.

And i never said anything about maintenance time and cost being high due to longer fuselage. However the cost will be higher for a a321 carrying 100 people compare to a319 carrying 100 people. That is due to HIGHER fuel burn for a321 on take and cruise (because its a bit bigger) compare to a319. The airport its going may charge higher landing fee for a321 compare to a319 due to higher weight. There are many other factors which affects cost, but i don't know them all obviously.

lol.........you are wrong, First of all Engine Output is almost the same, look at the following Parameter

A319neo
Max Pax - 160
Fuel Tank - 7060 US Gal
Range - 6950 Kilometer

A321neo
Max Pax - 240
Fuel Tank - 8700 US Gal
Range - 6500 Km

In a Aircraft to Aircraft comparsion, indeed A319 outperform A321 in fuel efficiency, (With a 8% smaller tank but with 6% more range) the problem is this 6% does not tranlate to Fuel Efficiency per seat (or in your term, FUEL BURN) as A321 can hold 50% more pax.

In fact, a research into A319 and A321 saw A321 won the Fuel Per seat category

http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sample_articles/sample_articles/fleet_planning_2_sample.pdf

You are using a low end number, which you only use a low pax flow rate as a consideration. And that is the case you need to consider, and that is also my point. You do not have a C919 variant that carry more than 180 people, you did not give your customer choice, and if they have a busy route, they will either have to use multiple C919 to carry that amount or a Single A321 can do the job well.

Point being, I can use a A321 to run a route that have low pax turnover (like 100 pax as you said) but I CANNOT use a C919 for high pax rate turn over (over 180 and you are done) and in an Airline, you WILL HAVE BOTH, meaning? Why would I have to buy both C919 and A321 for different haul that one for low rate and one for high rate? When I can simply use A321 for both? C919 save you some fuel, but not that a lot.

And if it's like you said, you will only have 100 pax to begin with, then why the heck you are using Narrowbody Jet such as C919, Boeing 737 or A320 series? You can use a regional jet to do the job.So, what you are doing is try to find a scenario that would make more sense if we are using C919 (with is low rate pax flow) which the very degree of this point already not making any sense, becuase if this is the case, you won't use Narrow Body airliner to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Umm, you said SMALL AIRCRAFT, not short haul aircraft.

Small Aircraft usually refer to Regional Jet, such as ARJ-21, Dash-9, Embraer Brazilia. I would not call a Fully loaded C919, Boeing 737 or Airbus 319.320,321 small aircraft. Airliner, in general (Big or Wide Body and Small or Narrow Body) are designed with long cycle, the only different is you tend to use more narrow body instead of wide body heavies for short haul, not becuase the heavies (for example Boeing 747) cannot take the long cycle. but because of financial concern.

There exist short haul route that make so much money, and been travel so many time aday, Airline uses heavies like A380 or Boeing 747 on them, route such as Air China Hong Kong to Taipei (appoximately 1 hours 45 minutes) JAL Toyko to Beijing (2 hours) and Tokyo to Hong Kong.

Also, I am comparing between the same category, not using a Boeing 747 on a MD-80, C919 and A321 is the same szie only A321 is 5 meter's longer, that's nothing in term of a 40 meters long aircraft.



lol.........you are wrong, First of all Engine Output is almost the same, look at the following Parameter

A319neo
Max Pax - 160
Fuel Tank - 7060 US Gal
Range - 6950 Kilometer

A321neo
Max Pax - 240
Fuel Tank - 8700 US Gal
Range - 6500 Km

In a Aircraft to Aircraft comparsion, indeed A319 outperform A321 in fuel efficiency, (With a 8% smaller tank but with 6% more range) the problem is this 6% does not tranlate to Fuel Efficiency per seat (or in your term, FUEL BURN) as A321 can hold 50% more pax.

In fact, a research into A319 and A321 saw A321 won the Fuel Per seat category

http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sample_articles/sample_articles/fleet_planning_2_sample.pdf

You are using a low end number, which you only use a low pax flow rate as a consideration. And that is the case you need to consider, and that is also my point. You do not have a C919 variant that carry more than 180 people, you did not give your customer choice, and if they have a busy route, they will either have to use multiple C919 to carry that amount or a Single A321 can do the job well.

Point being, I can use a A321 to run a route that have low pax turnover (like 100 pax as you said) but I CANNOT use a C919 for high pax rate turn over (over 180 and you are done) and in an Airline, you WILL HAVE BOTH, meaning? Why would I have to buy both C919 and A321 for different haul that one for low rate and one for high rate? When I can simply use A321 for both? C919 save you some fuel, but not that a lot.

And if it's like you said, you will only have 100 pax to begin with, then why the heck you are using Narrowbody Jet such as C919, Boeing 737 or A320 series? You can use a regional jet to do the job.So, what you are doing is try to find a scenario that would make more sense if we are using C919 (with is low rate pax flow) which the very degree of this point already not making any sense, becuase if this is the case, you won't use Narrow Body airliner to begin with.

Buddy you have no idea what you are talking about. Just because it says on the internet does not mean that's precisely how it works. Pilots don't use full power unless they're basically at their MTOW. There is a term called EPR. Airplanes are smart enough to calculate the take off thrust needed for take off (based on weight and weather conditions) Pilots set the thrust to that level on take off so that they don't burn more fuel than necessary.

Q400 (Dash 8) has 120,000 cycles air frame limit. Bottom line is aircraft like 737, a320, or a RJ/CRJ, all are designed to have higher number of cycles compare to a 777/747. You said the opposite.

Anyway I won't argue with you anymore. You are getting your info from google, I'm getting it from here.

1610837_10207709038869688_579965024365959592_n.jpg
 
I will delete the next off topic posts.
Okay, now back on topic - C919.


========


Heroes behind China's domestically-produced C919 passenger jet

CGTN

Published on Jan 6, 2017

As China's aviation market continues its explosive growth, it has already become the world's second largest air travel market behind the United States. China's domestically-produced C919 passenger aircraft is expected to enter service in 2017, and in today's "Our Story," we visit the team working on the project.
 
C919 (largest version)
-Wingspan - 35.8 meters
-Height - 11.95 meters
-Length - 38.9 meters
-Max Pax - 174

A321neo
-Wing Span - 35.8 meters
-Height - 11.76 meters
-Length - 44.51 meters
-Max Pax - 240

Boeing 737-MAX 9
Wing Span - 35.9 Meters
Height - 12.3 Meters
-Length - 42.2 Meters
Max Pax - 220
.


IMO that comparison is off since You cannot compare the largest version of each type but the C919 with the A320 and the B737-MAX-8 !
 
Back
Top Bottom