Chinese Aviation Industry
- Thread starter FriedRiceNSpice
- Start date
The question arose from 929 thread on what COMAC should be building. I think to start off, we have to think about demand from the Chinese carriers. The big 3 are CA, MU and CZ, with their primary hubs at PEK, PVG and CAN for international flights. MU also has secondary hubs at PKX and SHA. CZ has its second largest hub at PKX (or should be there at least). If you've ever taken flight from North America to Asia, you'd see that CA/MU/CZ are often some of the cheapest/most convenient connection options.
So first, I took a look at what a real world 5000 km range from PEK would be able to access (keep in mind that real world range can be a lot less than manufacturer advertised range, Westbound range is normally several hundred miles shorter than eastbound range due to wind from earth rotation)
You will see that it covers all of India, almost all of ASEAN countries, but would struggle to reach Bali or Karachi or Iran or Moscow.
if we increase that to 6000 km
Now, you cover all of ASEAN, probably all of Pakistan and some of Iran. It would probably struggle to reach Moscow or St Petersburgh. But as a whole, this is probably sufficient range for Air China to run a robust connection operation.
for XLR range at 7000 km
Now, we are getting somewhere. Large portions of Middle East, all of ASEAN and all of Russia.
If we look at it from CAN,
This is fascinating. CAN is actually better located to take advantage of China's increased trading with ASEAN countries and India/Pakistan. It would comfortably cover tourist hotspots of Maldives and Bali.
If we look at a shorter range version.
It would still cover a majority of places that Chinese people would probably want to fly to.
XLR one at 7000 km range
This would cover pretty much everywhere you can stomach going to on a single aisle aircraft from southern China. You will be able to fly to a good chunk of Middle East, all of Iran, India, ASEAN countries and large portions of Australia.
So if we think about things from the POV of a large Chinese carriers. They have a situation where the domestic airspace is very congested, so flights are often not on time. As such, they have lost a lot of pax to high speed train. As such, sub 2 hours flights generally are not very competitive in the domestic market. For the 2 to 5 hour flight market, they need something that has very low cost since they need to compete with the more comfortable experience of taking the train. As a point of reference, PEK to SHA is scheduled in as a 2h15m flight. PEK to CAN is scheduled in as a 3h30m flight. The former would not be very competitive with trains unless you live close to the airport. The latter is still more competitive than trains (takes at least 8 hours), but would need to be competitively priced. As such, a domestic Chinese carrier would want an aircraft with the lowest CASK.
If you are operating mostly out of CAN, then you want an aircraft that has very low cost in the 2 to 5 hour range at very high density. So this of a single class configuration of around 250 passengers at 28 to 30 inch pitch. This type of aircraft would allow any domestic Chinese carrier to cover all of China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Thailand. Now if this carrier also wants to use same fleet type for longer flights (5 to 8 hour range), you need to have a lower density aircraft with longer range.
so, I would propose the following. Base model
single class configuration with 200 passengers, 4 flight attendants at 29 inch pitch, 2 class could be 16 FC + 150 Y. Doesn't need a whole lot of range, 5000 km is fine. This would be comparable to MAX8 -> 200, maybe 1 row longer
First stretch model
single class configuration with 230 passengers, 5 flight attendants at 29 inch pitch. This would be basically A321NEO. Again, for high density variants, 5000 km range is fine.
Low density, low range model based on first stretched model
2 class with 16 J (lie flat), 160 Y 31 inch pitch + 7000 km range.
Second stretch model
This would be really pushing things for a single aisle aircraft
single class configuration with 270 passenger, 6 flight attendants at 29 inch pitch. Can also add in a 2 class configuration at 24 FC + 200 Y. I think for this, even 4500 km real world range is fine. this would be similar to the proposed A322NEO layout.
Keep in mind that most airports have what we call Group 3 sized gates. Which limits the wingspan to 118 ft. So this aircraft would have to fit this criteria. They probably want to have winglets on them to have better fuel economy. It's very important to have the most optimal wing designed for this segment.
So first, I took a look at what a real world 5000 km range from PEK would be able to access (keep in mind that real world range can be a lot less than manufacturer advertised range, Westbound range is normally several hundred miles shorter than eastbound range due to wind from earth rotation)
You will see that it covers all of India, almost all of ASEAN countries, but would struggle to reach Bali or Karachi or Iran or Moscow.
if we increase that to 6000 km
Now, you cover all of ASEAN, probably all of Pakistan and some of Iran. It would probably struggle to reach Moscow or St Petersburgh. But as a whole, this is probably sufficient range for Air China to run a robust connection operation.
for XLR range at 7000 km
Now, we are getting somewhere. Large portions of Middle East, all of ASEAN and all of Russia.
If we look at it from CAN,
This is fascinating. CAN is actually better located to take advantage of China's increased trading with ASEAN countries and India/Pakistan. It would comfortably cover tourist hotspots of Maldives and Bali.
If we look at a shorter range version.
It would still cover a majority of places that Chinese people would probably want to fly to.
XLR one at 7000 km range
This would cover pretty much everywhere you can stomach going to on a single aisle aircraft from southern China. You will be able to fly to a good chunk of Middle East, all of Iran, India, ASEAN countries and large portions of Australia.
So if we think about things from the POV of a large Chinese carriers. They have a situation where the domestic airspace is very congested, so flights are often not on time. As such, they have lost a lot of pax to high speed train. As such, sub 2 hours flights generally are not very competitive in the domestic market. For the 2 to 5 hour flight market, they need something that has very low cost since they need to compete with the more comfortable experience of taking the train. As a point of reference, PEK to SHA is scheduled in as a 2h15m flight. PEK to CAN is scheduled in as a 3h30m flight. The former would not be very competitive with trains unless you live close to the airport. The latter is still more competitive than trains (takes at least 8 hours), but would need to be competitively priced. As such, a domestic Chinese carrier would want an aircraft with the lowest CASK.
If you are operating mostly out of CAN, then you want an aircraft that has very low cost in the 2 to 5 hour range at very high density. So this of a single class configuration of around 250 passengers at 28 to 30 inch pitch. This type of aircraft would allow any domestic Chinese carrier to cover all of China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Thailand. Now if this carrier also wants to use same fleet type for longer flights (5 to 8 hour range), you need to have a lower density aircraft with longer range.
so, I would propose the following. Base model
single class configuration with 200 passengers, 4 flight attendants at 29 inch pitch, 2 class could be 16 FC + 150 Y. Doesn't need a whole lot of range, 5000 km is fine. This would be comparable to MAX8 -> 200, maybe 1 row longer
First stretch model
single class configuration with 230 passengers, 5 flight attendants at 29 inch pitch. This would be basically A321NEO. Again, for high density variants, 5000 km range is fine.
Low density, low range model based on first stretched model
2 class with 16 J (lie flat), 160 Y 31 inch pitch + 7000 km range.
Second stretch model
This would be really pushing things for a single aisle aircraft
single class configuration with 270 passenger, 6 flight attendants at 29 inch pitch. Can also add in a 2 class configuration at 24 FC + 200 Y. I think for this, even 4500 km real world range is fine. this would be similar to the proposed A322NEO layout.
Keep in mind that most airports have what we call Group 3 sized gates. Which limits the wingspan to 118 ft. So this aircraft would have to fit this criteria. They probably want to have winglets on them to have better fuel economy. It's very important to have the most optimal wing designed for this segment.
Why can Russia make long range civilian transport aircraft like Tu-214 while China has trouble making C-919?
What is Russia's secret? Tu-214 is longer, larger, greater range, higher payload despite Russia having overall lower budget than China.
What is Russia's secret? Tu-214 is longer, larger, greater range, higher payload despite Russia having overall lower budget than China.
Russian/Soviet civilian transport aircraft are not very good. Why do you think they switched to Boeing/Airbus after the collapse of the soviet union? Russia is often happy with good enough. China builds reliable quality at a good price. The C919 should be safer and more reliable than anything Russia can offer and China will be able to build it in much higher numbers. Of course, making a product that's so good that it can compete in the market takes a bit more time.
I'm sure China can make a plane longer larger and greater range than the Tu-214 if it puts less priority into things like efficiency or standardisation. But the fact is that in the current aviation market, efficiency rules. Airlines care about every little drop of oil saved
How can you compare the two? The latter is developed for the modern airline market with very high certification criteria and very high cost and availability and safety requirement. The former was developed for Soviet Union market. If you want to use size, range and payload as your criteria of a good aircraft, then Tu-214 would be a better aircraft than A220. Which would be nonsense, since A220 is state of art technology.
Hmm, seems like you are right. Need to compare apples to apples, only modern vs modern airliners.
Comparing Chinese and Russian modern narrowbody airliners, C-919 is not falling behind in project timeline compared to MC-21. C-919 had prototype delivered in 2015, MC-21 had prototype delivered in 2013. Both are undergoing certification. Both are scheduled for 2022 commercial delivery. In terms of complexity, C-919 and MC-21 are of the same size, payload and range.
Well the Soviets had a civil aviation industry and Russia is their successor. Plus just look at their country. They need aviation a lot more than China does. While China does have a large land area most population is also located close to the Eastern sea coastline. Russia needs to maintain connections to industrial towns in the Urals and connections to the Far East in Vladivostok and the like.
As for the C919's short range I think it is a matter of optimization for the market inside China and at best Southeast Asia. They probably chose to optimize for high numbers of passengers and low range.
you can measure engine technology from the noise level (full power/approach/flyover). The first one is modern B737(Leap engine)
with number is 23. and last one is A321 (CFM 56) number 10. the in between Tu-204SM and SSJ.
this does not measure on wing time without maintainance.
with number is 23. and last one is A321 (CFM 56) number 10. the in between Tu-204SM and SSJ.
this does not measure on wing time without maintainance.