What's new

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

Market size and being independent in such a strategic product are truly everything indeed! A nation can sacrifice some at first to support its domestic industry ... And do you think how did the Japanese grow their car industry at first?

Moreover the COMAC C919 will need many years to simply fulfill the many (815 units) domestic orders at hand... this gives ample time to grow the competitive engine. So let's worry less and let it be the portion of the COMAC's competitors.

Btw, the current outright ECONOMIC WARFARE launched by the Trump regime against China may alter altogether the commercial airliner business. Keep in mind this aspect and keep on watching!
When I wrote this, what came into my mind was about any concern on the C919 engine's fuel efficiency. For that one, the Chinese can bite the sacrifice if necessary during the initial stage!

But concerning SAFETY, there should be NO compromise. Passenger aircraft SAFETY must be the highest priority! In fact, the aircraft safety is the life and death of the aircraft itself, related to its own existence, not only the passengers!

COMAC should have learned a very good case from the Boeing 737–MAX series. The company should never compromise the SAFETY for the conveniences of design or production timing, or cost cutting, or other measures due to the pressure from the major clients, and accordingly take the shortcut approach, something like to overcome hardware design deficiency or impropriety relying on the algorithm or automation correction to offset it, like what happened to 737–MAX series.

At the end, it is not the certification or the aviation regulator that serves as the final judgement but the ACTUAL safety records in actual mileage of the particular model who determine its valuation!

Boeing 737–MAX Series should pose very good lessons for passenger aircraft manufacturers incl. COMAC!


Correction: the total order on hand for the C919 is 1,008 units as of June 2018.
 
Last edited:
upload_2019-5-20_9-11-33.png
upload_2019-5-20_9-12-7.png
upload_2019-5-20_9-12-41.png
 
When I wrote this, what came into my mind was about any concern on the C919 engine's fuel efficiency. For that one, the Chinese can bite the sacrifice if necessary during the initial stage!

But concerning SAFETY, there should be NO compromise. Passenger aircraft SAFETY must be the highest priority! In fact, the aircraft safety is the life and death of the aircraft itself, related to its own existence, not only the passengers!

COMAC should have learned a very good case from the Boeing 737–MAX series. The company should never compromise the SAFETY for the conveniences of design or production timing, or cost cutting, or other measures due to the pressure from the major clients, and accordingly take the shortcut approach, something like to overcome hardware design deficiency or impropriety relying on the algorithm or automation correction to offset it, like what happened to 737–MAX series.

At the end, it is not the certification or the aviation regulator that serves as the final judgement but the ACTUAL safety records in actual mileage of the particular model who determine its valuation!

Boeing 737–MAX Series should pose very good lessons for passenger aircraft manufacturers incl. COMAC!

Boeing 737 is not fully fly-by-wire, which makes it really hard to be perfectly adaptive to engine enlargement, whereas C919 is completely a new design, not only having much bigger room for much taller landing gears, but also the flight control system is fully fly-by-wire, ie. software defined.

Boeing 737 business is pretty much gone in China and some other countries. Passengers on social media said they will check aircraft model before buying tickets. If the airlines only show them main model number, such as Boeing 737, they will just ignore it and go for another one.

When all the 737s retire from China's airlines, say in 10 years, I hope C919 can enter manufacturing.
 
Boeing 737 is not fully fly-by-wire, which makes it really hard to be perfectly adaptive to engine enlargement, whereas C919 is completely a new design, not only having much bigger room for much taller landing gears, but also the flight control system is fully fly-by-wire, ie. software defined.

Boeing 737 business is pretty much gone in China and some other countries. Passengers on social media said they will check aircraft model before buying tickets. If the airlines only show them main model number, such as Boeing 737, they will just ignore it and go for another one.

When all the 737s retire from China's airlines, say in 10 years, I hope C919 can enter manufacturing.
The C919 aircraft will come into the commercial production in next one or two years, and surely won't need another 10 years. Not sure what did you mean by the 10 year time frame.

The C919 first order delivery is planned to be done in 2021.
 
Last edited:
The C919 aircraft will come into the commercial production in next one or two years, and surely won't need another 10 years. Not sure what did you mean by the 10 year time frame.

The C919 first order delivery is planned to be done in 2021.

Agreed, the C919 will surely enter production much sooner, however I would be careful - and as such I agree with the 10 year timeframe - to call it a commercial success: Even if the aircraft itself is surely up to date - probably in certain aspects more advanced than the A320 and surely more modern than the latest 737 - it has to be reminded that the big plus of both A&B major players is their huge network of maintenance and service. If there is a certain part missing or defect at any place on earth, it is only a matter of days if not hours to get that part delivered. Also, - just exactly the issue Boeing is currently fighting for - is credibility, which has to be earned thru years of faultless service and operations ... and this is IMO still the much bigger "to do" for COMAC within the next 10 years.
 
Agreed, the C919 will surely enter production much sooner, however I would be careful - and as such I agree with the 10 year timeframe - to call it a commercial success: Even if the aircraft itself is surely up to date - probably in certain aspects more advanced than the A320 and surely more modern than the latest 737 - it has to be reminded that the big plus of both A&B major players is their huge network of maintenance and service. If there is a certain part missing or defect at any place on earth, it is only a matter of days if not hours to get that part delivered. Also, - just exactly the issue Boeing is currently fighting for - is credibility, which has to be earned thru years of faultless service and operations ... and this is IMO still the much bigger "to do" for COMAC within the next 10 years.

As news last month from china, domestic engine for C919 will be ready for production around 2027.
but from until now, C919 enter production still no guarantee, since ZTE/huawei banned from US gov. US gov can ban C919 parts/engine from US company anytime went US gov feel C919 is "national security threat" to US or Boeing, or maybe don't give FAA approval, next target now talking in news is ban DJI.
 
Last edited:
As news last month from china, domestic engine for C919 will be ready for production around 2027.
but from until this now, C919 enter production still no guarantee, since ZTE/huawei banned from US gov. US gov can banned C919 parts/engine from US company anytime went US gov feel C919 is "national security threat" to US or Boeing, or maybe don't give FAA approval, next target now talking in news is ban DJI.
It won't be a bad news to Chinese manufacturers, but Boeing has to say goodby to Chinese market.
 
Agreed, the C919 will surely enter production much sooner, however I would be careful - and as such I agree with the 10 year timeframe - to call it a commercial success: Even if the aircraft itself is surely up to date - probably in certain aspects more advanced than the A320 and surely more modern than the latest 737 - it has to be reminded that the big plus of both A&B major players is their huge network of maintenance and service. If there is a certain part missing or defect at any place on earth, it is only a matter of days if not hours to get that part delivered. Also, - just exactly the issue Boeing is currently fighting for - is credibility, which has to be earned thru years of faultless service and operations ... and this is IMO still the much bigger "to do" for COMAC within the next 10 years.



Impossible for C919 to be more advanced than either A320 or latest 737s. They both are made by manufacturers with decades of experience in airframe design and construction. I agree though that C919 will come close to both.
 
Impossible for C919 to be more advanced than either A320 or latest 737s. They both are made by manufacturers with decades of experience in airframe design and construction. I agree though that C919 will come close to both.
"... the latest 737s", better products from a very long time, very experienced maker, well, a logical thought process, the typical perception of the general populace until one reads info like this...entering the X factors, and especially when the giant player thought that the national aviation regulator (FAA) was already in its own grip... corrupt mentality prevails... hey, "complacency kills the cat"!


Some hardly told story on the product with the largest sales pie, the Boeing 737-MAX series and its MCAS…

The issue with the 737 MAX started when Boeing's biggest 737 customer, the Southwest Airlines (USA), wanted a newer more efficient airplane. Boeing killed off the 757 and began the MAX program. The customer wanted an airplane that would NOT require any new training or a new type rating. Boeing claimed that the MAX was just an updated, more efficient version of it's venerable, proven, workhorse; the classic 737.

But the MAX was not just an updated version of a previously certified airframe. The MAX had a new wing and new engines; changing the airframe's center of gravity and center of lift. Those characteristics changed the way the airplane flew.

So, to make it fly like the current 737-800; Boeing installed a new, secret, 'safety' system so-called the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System). The MCAS was needed to make the airplane fly and feel like the current version of 737-800.

But it was so secret that Boeing chose not to tell anyone about it. They didn't include this extra feature in any maintenance manuals, they didn't include it in any training manuals, they didn't include it in any aircraft operating manuals. They especially didn't tell the pilots about it.

The airplane was successfully certified as a 737 and no new training was required. A win for Boeing and a win for its biggest 737 customer.

With the new flight characteristics the MAX might have a propensity to pitch up under certain flight conditions. To counteract this pitch-up (a term for a severe form of stall in an aircraft) moment, Boeing developed and installed the MCAS. The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System is designed to push the nose or nudge the nose over during a critical pitch-up moment. It takes information from computers fed by information from the Angle of Attack vanes.

Apparently, the Lion Air crash was caused by faulty information fed to the MCAS. The MCAS pushed the nose over. This caught the pilots by surprise. The airplane was not behaving like they expected or like they were trained to expect.

In a effort to arrest this uncommanded, nose over moment, the pilot should be able to disconnect the autopilot and hand fly, manually fly the airplane using your pilotage skills. But, this new secret system was designed to operate in BOTH Auto-flight and manual-flight mode. So even when you are in manual flight mode, if the MCAS is getting false information, it will continue to push you nose over, push your nose down.

Runaway trim is something pilots are trained for. That is what Boeing would like to hide behind. That is what Boeing would like to use when it points to pilot's error. At least with the Lion Air flight, the passengers and crew were done in by an aircraft system that Boeing chose to keep secret.

And question to the FAA, if there is nothing wrong with the MAX, why has Boeing recently said there is a software update coming out soon. Air France 447, was scheduled to have it's defective pitot tubes replaced when its fatal last flight was scheduled to land in Paris. Just a little too late for 228 passengers and crew? Did the Boeing software update come too late for the 157 passengers and crew on Ethiopian Air 302?

Dig deep the news around the last fatal accident of the Ethiopian Air to find out more the less told stories.

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/
 
Last edited:
Impossible for C919 to be more advanced than either A320 or latest 737s. They both are made by manufacturers with decades of experience in airframe design and construction. I agree though that C919 will come close to both.
Yup.. Boeing with decades of experience and yet can make a faulty plane like B737 Max. Too much experience makes you complacent while Comac being new kid on the block and bound to impress for its first major product will do a better job with more effort. Comac are not completely new in commercial plane. In terms of design, Comac with huge state support and expertise from military design will help a lot.
 
Yup.. Boeing with decades of experience and yet can make a faulty plane like B737 Max. Too much experience makes you complacent while Comac being new kid on the block and bound to impress for its first major product will do a better job with more effort. Comac are not completely new in commercial plane. In terms of design, Comac with huge state support and expertise from military design will help a lot.


Apart from the 787-Max, I would ALWAYS choose a Boeing plane over a COMAC plane. You would have to pay me a large sum of money to get onto a Chinese airliner.

Funny thing is that Boeing is likely to be even safer as they cannot afford another fiasco as that would put their future at risk.
 
Apart from the 787-Max, I would ALWAYS choose a Boeing plane over a COMAC plane. You would have to pay me a large sum of money to get onto a Chinese airliner.

Funny thing is that Boeing is likely to be even safer as they cannot afford another fiasco as that would put their future at risk.
Well that's you choice. I can't stop you if you want to fly in a plane with known issues.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom