Chinese Engine Development

Again, Chinese airlines still have the choice at the moment. They have to make business decision based on supply disruption vs using a new engine supplier. China is a country that's fully connected by high speed rail. If C919 doesn't fly, it's really not the end of the world. As such from day 1, it had the goals of using foreign suppliers to help with certification. Remember, it started C919 project when relationship with Europe hasn't taken a downturn, so it was trying to get EASA certification, which would allow it to export to many global south countries that recognize EASA TC.

In order to do this, it was prudent at the time to offer both Leap-1C and domestic engine as options. To limit risk, Chinese airlines picked Leap-1C. I can't blame them for that. Again, if C919 is not flying, it's not a national crisis. So, the government thus far hasn't forced any airline to fly with CJ-1000A. We will see who it persuades first.

But the point is that if it's just government user that uses CJ-1000A, don't assume the engine itself is bad. Airlines are free to make their own decisions on what engines to use.

The only reason to use the imported CFM Leap engine is if the production rate of the CJ-1000 is insuficient.

As for EASA certification if China wants to sell to the Global South all China needs to do is to create its own competitive aviation sector. And then they can certify aircraft themselves in China.

gelgoog said:

Russia also has its own precision cutting and 3D printing tools in use by the United Engine Corporation.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

They also make their own friction stir welding tools.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Russia has a deep legacy from the Soviet Union where their industry was on par with the US and in some fields even ahead. So no matter which project they initiate , they already have a foundation laid out or something to build on or experienced engineers/scientists who worked on this industry . So it’s different from China who has to start from scratch.Ao China might be ahead in many fields today but it takes time to acclimate and show publicly into operational products especially in engine and Aerospace industry which takes a lot of time to develop

Michael90 said:

Russia has a deep legacy from the Soviet Union where their industry was on par with the US and in some fields even ahead. So no matter which project they initiate , they already have a foundation laid out or something to build on or experienced engineers/scientists who worked on this industry . So it’s different from China who has to start from scratch.Ao China might be ahead in many fields today but it takes time to acclimate and show publicly into operational products especially in engine and Aerospace industry which takes a lot of time to develop

Click to expand...

I think China just needs to be more aggressive and assertive.

@tphuang is very much correct when he says that it’s ultimately airlines that will have to drive domestic engine adoption. There will be a lot of hesitance to adopt a product that’s ultimately, unproven in a commercial setting where margins can be very, very thin.

And TP is correct when he says it’s not necessarily a huge deal to have some compromises in the civil aviation sector when HSR works so well in China.

But Id also say that the government should pressure and “strongly” incentivize adoption of domestic engines. If airlines are hesitant to take a gamble, then make it profitable to take such a gamble. COMAC and really, the rest of China’s civil aviation industry will need many years to become competitive with Western global giants. It is absolutely imperative to cut that time down as much as possible. Washington is slowly weaponizing everything. It reminds me of the recent podcast on Gold TP did. You need domestic alternatives to basically everything ahead of time, before Washington can weaponize it.