Actually, for matured aircraft like 737 and A320, malfunctions on the reverse thrust are not rare to see during the operation.
COMAC C919
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Let's not get into conspiracy theory here. C919 program will have many issues like this. Teething issue with regard to propulsion is quite common for new aircraft.
Reverser doors on engines are driven by hydraulics, so could've just been a fault with the hydraulics system rather than the engine itself... Honestly no biggie, stuff like that happens on the line every now and then - last year I operated an A320 into Heraklion, and the #1 reverser failed to deploy on the landing rollout (or at least that was the indication on the flight deck systems display). Once we'd parked up on stand, we called out the on-station engineer to check the system. An hour later the engineer signed it off and we were airborne again, the same reverser worked just fine when we landed back at Gatwick.
Systems aren't designed to be flawless, malfunctions do happen once in a blue moon. If CAAC standards and regulations are similar to the UK CAA and EASA, mandated landing performance is calculated with idle thrust + all spoilers operative + all reversers inoperative.
Granted majority of my A320 time are on the ceo, I do have some experience on the neo... although the LEAP is a highly fuel efficient engine, I do find them slightly temperamental compared to the IAE that are on our ceos.
Systems aren't designed to be flawless, malfunctions do happen once in a blue moon. If CAAC standards and regulations are similar to the UK CAA and EASA, mandated landing performance is calculated with idle thrust + all spoilers operative + all reversers inoperative.
Granted majority of my A320 time are on the ceo, I do have some experience on the neo... although the LEAP is a highly fuel efficient engine, I do find them slightly temperamental compared to the IAE that are on our ceos.
Any recent photos of her reverse thrusts being deployed after touchdown?C919's verification flights continue. She has just landed at Sanya Phoenix International Airport.
you missed the key here
it did PVG->SXY->HRB. SXY to HRB is over 5 hours of air time. It's one of the longest flights MU could operate domestically. It has to do these longer flights and verify continued high availability before an airline feels comfortable to put it into service.
I wish flightradar is tracking this better so we can see how many block hours this aircraft is doing. so far, this is all you can see
these test flights are not getting recorded.
so looks like it did both segments today, which is probably 10 block hour day. This is the most aggressively they've flown B001F on a day so far.
Last edited:
Slight correction: Sanya Phoenix International Airport's code is SYX.
SXY is for Sidney Municipal Airport in New York.
by78
General
There was a question about A320's "impressive" range advantage over C919 in this thread. Today for an unrelated reason, I happen to read wiki page of A320neo again and noticed this highlighted texts.
The ACTs give 24% increase of fuel capacity. Question for people to think, is the "impressive" range achieved by the additional fuel tanks? I think very likely.
However the wiki figure about C919 has nothing about any additional tanks. If we calculate the max takeoff weight minus the operating empty weight and fuel capacity, there is a more than 2 tonne gap between C919 and A320neo. Is't ACT uncounted for? If so what is the fuel capacity of C919's wiki range? Or maybe COMAC sees no reason for C-919 to fly as far as A-320 therefor choose to give more rooms to the passengers and cargo.
My conclusion is that C919's performance is UNKNOWN. People should not take the western "experts" and Wikipedia for granted. Nor should people automatically believe that China is always behind the west for unknown or unexplained reasons without carefully examine available data.
Also worth to note, C919 is to be able to operate from Tibetan plateau. Many A320 variants can NOT do that. China uses an A319 variant with 120kN thrust for the purpose. A319 is 75.5t max takeoff with 120kN, C919 is 75.1t with >129kN.
The ACTs give 24% increase of fuel capacity. Question for people to think, is the "impressive" range achieved by the additional fuel tanks? I think very likely.
However the wiki figure about C919 has nothing about any additional tanks. If we calculate the max takeoff weight minus the operating empty weight and fuel capacity, there is a more than 2 tonne gap between C919 and A320neo. Is't ACT uncounted for? If so what is the fuel capacity of C919's wiki range? Or maybe COMAC sees no reason for C-919 to fly as far as A-320 therefor choose to give more rooms to the passengers and cargo.
My conclusion is that C919's performance is UNKNOWN. People should not take the western "experts" and Wikipedia for granted. Nor should people automatically believe that China is always behind the west for unknown or unexplained reasons without carefully examine available data.
Also worth to note, C919 is to be able to operate from Tibetan plateau. Many A320 variants can NOT do that. China uses an A319 variant with 120kN thrust for the purpose. A319 is 75.5t max takeoff with 120kN, C919 is 75.1t with >129kN.
Eh ultimately what matters is the fuel cost per passenger per mile.