Chinese Engine Development

pipaster said:

Is there any possibility of going over to the PD-14/purchasing MC-21s if in a bind?

In fact why haven't the Chinese carriers ordered a token number of MC-21s, even if just to show good will to Russia.

Click to expand...

Russians are welcome in setting up an aircraft manufacturing plant like Airbus and Boeing in China.
In order to sweeten their offerings, they may also assemble PD-14 in China. China welcomes everyone. Besides, I don't think Civil aviation is about showing good will. Ultimately it's about profitability of the civil airliners.

delete

taxiya said:

What is the purpose of buying MC-21? It is the same type of aircraft as C-919. China have no problem purchasing such type like A320. The sole purpose of C-919 is to be able to make it. How does a "good will" help to realize that purpose?

PD-14 is the same class as CJ-1000. Once again what is the point of buying PD-14 which itself is also under development? It may be a little bit ahead of CJ-1000 on the way, but the whole thing engine or aircraft is about building competence than assembling.

Lastly, why are there these "good will" thing, for what? Nothing is free and nothing should be free.

Click to expand...

The good will is to support the Russian aviation industry, who will be the least likely to impose trade embargoes on China if things go further south in the relations with the West. In return you will get an aircraft that will be reasonably competitive. Giving Russia an industry will allow a more balanced trading relationship with Russia, and create an interest between the two parties.

You will also give Boeing and Airbus (and the government's that those aircraft are produced in) an indication that you can and will buy from UAC if an embargo is imposed. Look at the Iranian airliner industry for how that goes.

The C919 and CJ1000, should be given the time required to make them as competitive as possible. They should also be ordered in big numbers, which they have been.

Boeing should be cut off as much as possible, using sales to them as a carrot when needed.

delete

pipaster said:

The good will is to support the Russian aviation industry, who will be the least likely to impose trade embargoes on China if things go further south in the relations with the West. In return you will get an aircraft that will be reasonably competitive. Giving Russia an industry will allow a more balanced trading relationship with Russia, and create an interest between the two parties.

You will also give Boeing and Airbus (and the government's that those aircraft are produced in) an indication that you can and will buy from UAC if an embargo is imposed. Look at the Iranian airliner industry for how that goes.

The C919 and CJ1000, should be given the time required to make them as competitive as possible. They should also be ordered in big numbers, which they have been.

Boeing should be cut off as much as possible, using sales to them as a carrot when needed.

Click to expand...

That is not "good will", it is ransom in different name. Look at the "good will" that China has paid to US, aka Boeing purchasing and treasury bond (toilet paper) in the past many decades. No amount of "good will" can build a real friendship. Such "good will" will only invite more robbery.

Interest in "mutual interest" is really interest, not donation or charity. A real good will from China is offering Russia to setup engine plant in China, and offering Chinese components to substitute western component in MC-21. BTW, MC-21 is also under sanction by the west, so it is in similar situation with C919. The good will applies both directions.

Boeing and Airbus will beg China to buy their aircraft. Iran's embargo is not what these two wanted, it is the US government. No amount of indication to these two can help anything.

Cutting off Boeing does not equate to buying MC-21, there is Airbus for a long time. A320 is much more reliable and matural than MC-21 which is at the same stage as C919.

Don't let your hatred of the west mess up China's interest. China and Russia's relationship is and should be built on realistic and materialistic interests rather than symbolic and emotional base.

taxiya said:

What is the purpose of buying MC-21? It is the same type of aircraft as C-919. China have no problem purchasing such type like A320. The sole purpose of C-919 is to be able to make it. How does a "good will" help to realize that purpose?

Click to expand...

If Chinese airlines purchase MS-21s it should be on merit, not industrial or "good will" considerations, I agree. That said, if it delivers on its promise, there is considerable scope for this to happen - while the engine is the same, the airframe is a generation ahead of the A320neo. Customers will want to wait for it to prove its reliability in real-world operation though, so that's not a short-term alternative.

taxiya said:

PD-14 is the same class as CJ-1000. Once again what is the point of buying PD-14 which itself is also under development? It may be a little bit ahead of CJ-1000 on the way, but the whole thing engine or aircraft is about building competence than assembling.

Click to expand...

First PD-14 core on bench in 2010, first complete engine ground run in 2012, flight test campaign commences in 2015, Russian certification awarded in 2018. EASA approval is pending, but the base version (as opposed to derivatives) certainly isn't under development anymore. Define "a little bit", according to the above dates it is running some 5-6 years ahead of the CJ-1000A!

As for foreign content in the CJ-1000A which might be subject to sanctions, here's a chance find I came across recently:


This is, of course, a European (UK) company, but CAATSA is cleverly designed to incentivize compliance by non-US businesses. It explicitly threatens to deny US market access to any company which trades with entities on the sanctions list and since for most aerospace suppliers the US remains a bigger source of income than China, most will be forced to cut ties. The resins and fibers that became unavailable to Irkut for the MS-21 wing due to CAATSA were sourced from Belgian and Japanese companies, respectively.

It is my understanding that CJ-1000 has Chinese suppliers and alternatives for any foreign component?

Hollow turbine blades is something China has accomplished and technology it has although I do not think this applies to ceramic types yet?

ougoah said:

It is my understanding that CJ-1000 has Chinese suppliers and alternatives for any foreign component?

Hollow turbine blades is something China has accomplished and technology it has although I do not think this applies to ceramic types yet?

Click to expand...

The ceramics referred to are not part of the finished blade, they are needed for the casting process. To form the hollow interior geometry (cooling air passages and associated fins/pins), a "negative" insert must be placed inside the mould that can withstand the heat of the molten alloy without deformation. Ceramic with its excellent high-temperature stability is ideal, once the blade has solidified the insert is then dissolved with a chemical that does not attack the metal and flushed out to leave the interior empty.

No idea whether there is a domestic fall-back, but in this particular instance I half expect one can be substituted in fairly short order. I can't see WS-10 & -15 blade production relying on a Western supplier!

Tirdent said:

This is, of course, a European (UK) company, but CAATSA is cleverly designed to incentivize compliance by non-US businesses. It explicitly threatens to deny US market access to any company which trades with entities on the sanctions list and since for most aerospace suppliers the US remains a bigger source of income than China, most will be forced to cut ties.

Click to expand...

That's a factory in China though. If push comes to shove, China could disregard IP rights from any company that sanction against China.
I don't think it would come to that point as far as C919 is concerned.

Tirdent said:

The ceramics referred to are not part of the finished blade, they are needed for the casting process. To form the hollow interior geometry (cooling air passages and associated fins/pins), a "negative" insert must be placed inside the mould that can withstand the heat of the molten alloy without deformation. Ceramic with its excellent high-temperature stability is ideal, once the blade has solidified the insert is then dissolved with a chemical that does not attack the metal and flushed out to leave the interior empty.

No idea whether there is a domestic fall-back, but in this particular instance I half expect one can be substituted in fairly short order. I can't see WS-10 & -15 blade production relying on a Western supplier!

Click to expand...

Are you aware of any Chinese substitutes?