Facepalming myself here.
Maybe you should go have a better read on what the 777, 787, A330 and A350 families and series are about first?
Last edited:
Chinese Aviation Industry
- Thread starter FriedRiceNSpice
- Start date
Facepalming myself here.
Maybe you should go have a better read on what the 777, 787, A330 and A350 families and series are about first?
the Hainan "Satellite Super Factory" project has finally reached the final stage of demonstration. The "Satellite Super Factory" is expected to have an annual production capacity of 1,000 satellites in the future
Being an aviation industry professional (Commercial), I could furnish several characteristics but I'll just rest my case for now..
Right...
The A330 and 787 are in one weight class. The same as the C929.
The A350 and 777 are in a separate, higher, weight class. The same as the supposed C939.
It is basically impossible to have a single competitive design that covers all these weight classes.
Airbus cancelled its small A350-800 aircraft. Despite the A350 being a more modern design made with composites, compared with the A330, just making the A350-900 shorter would result in an aircraft with higher empty weight than the older A330 aircraft, made with aluminium, with the same payload. And would have much worse performance than the 787.
While there are high capacity stretched 787s as well, which seemingly overlap with the low end of A350 and 777 performance, their range is sacrificed to achieve this. You are carrying passengers and luggage instead of fuel. And since large aircraft are often used for intercontinental and long distance flight between hubs this is a major weakness.
Aircraft need to have wings of area adequate for their total weight. The landing gear is also designed according to the max weight of the aircraft. If you change the length of the aircraft you might also have center of mass issues which would be better solved by moving the wings to a different position. There are just so many models you can make of a base design without making an inefficient aircraft.
The A350 and 777 are in a separate, higher, weight class. The same as the supposed C939.
It is basically impossible to have a single competitive design that covers all these weight classes.
Airbus cancelled its small A350-800 aircraft. Despite the A350 being a more modern design made with composites, compared with the A330, just making the A350-900 shorter would result in an aircraft with higher empty weight than the older A330 aircraft, made with aluminium, with the same payload. And would have much worse performance than the 787.
While there are high capacity stretched 787s as well, which seemingly overlap with the low end of A350 and 777 performance, their range is sacrificed to achieve this. You are carrying passengers and luggage instead of fuel. And since large aircraft are often used for intercontinental and long distance flight between hubs this is a major weakness.
Aircraft need to have wings of area adequate for their total weight. The landing gear is also designed according to the max weight of the aircraft. If you change the length of the aircraft you might also have center of mass issues which would be better solved by moving the wings to a different position. There are just so many models you can make of a base design without making an inefficient aircraft.
Last edited:
What else apart from the usual benefits of a 320-350t MTOW (777X, A350) versus a 250t MTOW (C929, 787, A330neo) aircraft need to be particularly considered?
This is assuming that a national C939 is a 777X or A350 weight class aircraft of a similar standard configuration.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Playing devil here.
Although form a prestige position this is true. From a practical standpoint it may not. This may be the same folly as the A380. A vanity project that could backfire and put Comac in trouble.
The trend for narrow body airliners has been to get bigger. The trend for wide bodies by contrast is to get smaller. C929’s projected size is actually the optimal position.
This is due to the trends of the airline industry that started after the B747. Where in at that time the airlines operated by a hub and spoke network. With a few international airports capable of supporting large transatlantic or transpacific flights. That would then transfer passengers to regional airliners to their destination.
As time progressed smaller airports got better to service first regional jets. Then the regional jets got better engines. Better engines meant that the smaller but still international airliners didn’t need 4 engines so ETOPS meant twin engines displaced quad engine jets. Many of the Narrow body planes were realized to be capable of crossing oceans. So airlines began flying point to point. Why hassle passengers and crew by spoke to hub and hub to spoke when origin to destination? This drove the need for VLA types like the 777 down. Well it still exists the bread and butter of an airline manufacturer are the smaller widebodys. There are very very few routes that can be flown by a 777 but not a 787.
In order to justify actual production of a C939 Comac would need demand outside the PRC and State owned airlines. They would need international orders. Very few airlines have the routes that demand an aircraft that size. Those that do have long Standing relationships with the Duopoly. Relationships that it would be hard to muscle in on. Particularly as by the time the C939 is launched it’s likely going to be facing the next generation of Airbus and Boeing aircraft.
The few places where Boeing and Airbus are not strongly associated are places where either the airlines are not likely to be able to afford new planes or may not have the need.