COMAC C919 - China's first modern airliner

antiterror13 said:

here you go another biased and negative comment (again ...)
"... lack of educational" .... how do you come up with this assumption?

Click to expand...

It's not unreasonable -- COMAC probably almost definitely does have less experience in conducting those kind of customer support tasks, compared to the likes of Boeing and Airbus who have decades of experience to draw upon.

Hopefully they would have developed a method of properly implementing those post-sales support tasks, but the truth is we don't know how well COMAC will implement it for customers.

Bltizo said:

It's not unreasonable -- COMAC probably almost definitely does have less experience in conducting those kind of customer support tasks, compared to the likes of Boeing and Airbus who have decades of experience to draw upon.

Hopefully they would have developed a method of properly implementing those post-sales support tasks, but the truth is we don't know how well COMAC will implement it for customers.

Click to expand...

I agree with "lack of experience" .... but "lack of educational" ?????? these two are totally different things, no?

antiterror13 said:

I agree with "lack of experience" .... but "lack of educational" ?????? these two are totally different things, no?

Click to expand...

What he said was "lack of educational and maintenance support" -- or in other words "lack of educational support and lack of maintenance support".

So he's saying that COMAC may have less experience providing educational support and maintenance support to its customers regarding its products... I don't think he's saying COMAC is uneducated or anything... that would not make sense.

yeap, I think you are right ... I misread that

The first minute in this video talks about some noteworthy aspects of the C919.
They are Advanced aerodynamics, 3D printing technology and composites.

It would be very interesting to know what 3D technologies he is talking about. I have seen photos of 3D printed titanium wing spars that were intended for the C919. I am not sure if they have made it to the production aircraft though.

Bltizo said:

What he said was "lack of educational and maintenance support" -- or in other words "lack of educational support and lack of maintenance support".

So he's saying that COMAC may have less experience providing educational support and maintenance support to its customers regarding its products... I don't think he's saying COMAC is uneducated or anything... that would not make sense.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying, it's just not experience but also the supply chain network, and most importantly the cost involved to place those facilities.
It's basically a chicken or the egg situation is COMAC willing to pay the cost first to implement not knowing if they will see sales rise to compensate the cost or wait for sales first before implementing knowing that they will be a marketing disadvantage against the well established competitors?
As I said the product is only a part of the whole equation.

SamuraiBlue said:

I am sure it will be given a certification but that is not a big problem compared to the lack of educational and maintenance support this plane will need to get sales abroad getting off the ground.
You may know that all planes have a type licence for a pilot to be qualified to fly the plane. So an airliner require to pay for their education to gain that licence to fly the plane.That becomes a burden especially if there are no simulators in the immediate area.Same with training the mechanics which requires localized repair manuals and online support.
At the end the product is only part of the equation in this industry especially if it's only on par with a product that has all the required infrastructure around the globe.

Click to expand...

All new products will have similar problems, more so if it is the first for the company. However, bear in mind that many components are sourced from established suppliers who also supply Boeing and Airbus.

Thus we should not expect major problems with after sales service and part supplies from the original manufacturers.

Pilot training may carry a bit weight, but then the cock pit avionics and controls are also from Europe and US, so there should not be any unfamiliar lay-out and operation procedure that is much difference from current airliners of similar size.

lcloo said:

All new products will have similar problems, more so if it is the first for the company. However, bear in mind that many components are sourced from established suppliers who also supply Boeing and Airbus.

Thus we should not expect major problems with after sales service and part supplies from the original manufacturers.

Pilot training may carry a bit weight, but then the cock pit avionics and controls are also from Europe and US, so there should not be any unfamiliar lay-out and operation procedure that is much difference from current airliners of similar size.

View attachment 20971

Click to expand...

At the end the components is required to be shipped from COMAC not the suppliers since it requires authentication of quality inspection by the manufacturer. In doing so COMAC requires to develop a component warehouse and hubs to develop a supply chain network to ensure on time delivery. It like buying a Toyota compared to buying a Lamborgini, Toyota they have component distribution hubs all over the world so you know that the car will be fixed within the week, with Lamborgini with all it's glory when it breaks down you may have to wait to the end of the month (or longer) to get it back on the road.

As for flying yes a pilot would probably be able to fly a plane since basically the same science applies BUT the pilot is not certified to fly with passengers aboard without a license and the only way you get one is to train XX hours on a simulator and a instructor giving a stamp once he had finished the hours to authorize that the person had past the test. You can't rubber stamp these test either.

In order to reduce the structure weight, 62% of the airframe adopted a third-generation of aluminium alloy material.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Will Aluminum-Lithium Beat Composites for Narrow Body Airliners?
This analysis was posted on GLG News October 18th, and is reproduced here for our readers.

Aluminum-Lithium alloys will likely become the material of choice over composites for the fuselages of the next generation of narrow-body aircraft. Lighter than traditional Aluminum, the trade-offs between composites and the new lightweight alloys appear to be favoring Aluminum-Lithium.

Carbon fiber composites have made tremendous inroads on commercial aircraft, primarily due to their light weight and high strength. The Boeing 787 wide body airliner will be the first example of an aircraft fuselage and key structural components being constructed with composites, to be followed by the forthcoming Airbus A350XWB.

But those materials appear to be taking a back seat to new technology metals, particularly Aluminum-Lithium alloys, such as Airware™ from Alcan, a division of Rio Tinto. These new alloys are significantly lighter than traditional Aluminum construction, have significantly improved corrosion resistance, and are lower in cost than composite materials.

Remember that China already has experience selling and servicing over 80 MA60s that have been sold around the world.

When Tonga got its MA60 pilots and Air hostesses had to go to China beforehand to do their training. The pilot training was quite strict and difficult. Pilots had to be able to take off in the simulator with one engine out.

There was also training given in Tonga by Chinese pilots in command.

Mechanics from China came to Tonga to train the Airlines mechanics.

There were also many container loads of spare parts(Around 8 containers?) sent to service the plane.

It all worked quite well and there didn't seem to be down time that I noticed.

So China has done this before, they have a pattern that works and this experience will help them greatly.