COMAC C919

M

MixedReality

Junior Member
Registered Member
Dark Father said:
The same as with the semiconductor industry to much reliance on Western suppliers for a lot of crucial components. Localization rate 60% according to Global Times.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

FxPl3eQXwAAwSSw
Click to expand...

This C919 picture with their respective components gets thrown around a lot in Western media and social media and have been for multiple years.

My question is how accurate is this picture as of 2023?

Because anyone can make such a picture and slap Western companies on it. Doesn’t mean it is accurate nor whether it is up-to-date as of 2023.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Boltzmann said:
Russia is not a meaningful point of reference for Chinese manufacturing capabilities, at all. Let that meme die. Neither is the China of half a century ago. I understand you're not trying to troll but using CSIS reports and the like to gauge Chinese technical capabilities is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I am not, I am pointing out not the manufacturing but the critical issues of global support. Airlines prefer to be able to fix their aircraft on their own and not have to send them half the world away. If an Argentinian airline bought a c919 they want to have the ability to fix it in Argentina. Right now the C919’s logistical support is in China which is fine for a purely domestic aircraft. The question is can Comac establish a global network.
gelgoog said:
Actually the Soviets had plenty of successful airliners like the Tu-154 and the Il-62.
They also built the first jet transport aircraft, and the first supersonic transport aircraft.

The Il-86 suffered, I think, from excessive political interference. The government sought to put it into service before the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Civilian technology was also underfunded compared with military technology. If you go to the Wikipedia page for the Il-86 they will claim that Soviet engine technology was outdated, or whatever, and incapable of making requisite modern engines of sufficient power. The people who wrote that never looked at the specifications of the NK-22 engine in the Tu-22M bomber.

The Tu-204 and Superjet 100 had issues with lack of proper financing to clients and customer support. You might also make claims with regards to some technical issues with some components in the Tu-204. The non-automated cockpit which requires a third crewman and the lack of lifetime of the PS-90 engines. But the truth is the major deal breaker was lack of financing. A lot of Russian companies just initially leased second hand Western aircraft at residual prices. The Russian aviation industry could not compete with that.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t commenting on where it was at its start but where it’s ended. The majority of the great Russian airliners are today scrap, Rusting monuments or flying North Korean air lines.
of the modern type’s almost every airline that ordered Tu204 went belly up. The type today is only really used by Government users or anyone the Russians could pawn them off to. The story of the rest is more or less that the Russian airlines looked at what was for sale by the Indigenous makers looked at what was available from the western market and picked the western 9/10 times. Because the Russian companies couldn’t keep up with demand demand in numbers, demand in capability demand in efficiency. . I mean Il96 a 4 engine wide body in post ETOPS era? Poor timing ,Airbus A340 was worse but they had the A330CEO with the same body and wings just 2 more powerful engines which saved them.
 
Z

zszczhyx

Junior Member
Registered Member
MixedReality said:
This C919 picture with their respective components gets thrown around a lot in Western media and social media and have been for multiple years.

My question is how accurate is this picture as of 2023?

Because anyone can make such a picture and slap Western companies on it. Doesn’t mean it is accurate nor whether it is up-to-date as of 2023.
Click to expand...
That picture is inaccurate.
 
D

Deleted member 24525

Guest
MixedReality said:
This C919 picture with their respective components gets thrown around a lot in Western media and social media and have been for multiple years.

My question is how accurate is this picture as of 2023?

Because anyone can make such a picture and slap Western companies on it. Doesn’t mean it is accurate nor whether it is up-to-date as of 2023.
Click to expand...
This picture is basically accurate, but three things. First notice that the radar and entire airframe are domestic. Western pundits will tell you that making the airframe of a big civilian jet from scratch is some easy feat. It isnt. Second, see that the only foreign made technology which China cannot currently produce is the civilian high bypass turbofan. Third, notice that many of the supposedly foreign-made things, particularly the avionics, are actually made in China by JVs.

COMAC absolutely could have had every subsystem save the engine be domestic, but it deliberately chose foreign suppliers in order to speed up airworthiness certification in foreign markets. And of those foreign suppliers, many are actually in China and produce with a substantial degree of localization.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
reposting what I tweeted in response to someone complaining about domestic %

COMAC fans should bookmark this
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


C919's ability to stay in the air will determine its competitiveness. Why SHA-CTU? Both are MU hubs that can service C919 in the event of breakdown. No airline wants to have hangar queens.

SSJ w/ 90% availability contributed to the bankruptcy of Interjet. E90 maintenance cost has been so high that JetBlue is dumping it despite avg of just 10 yrs of service. A220 spends too much time in the hangar despite rave reviews from DL & B6.

There will be many that expect C919 to have real problems on its EIS, like its 2 mths long delay into revenue service. Over the next few months, MU will determine C919's CASK (cost per available seat km). A top up order from MU will be the greatest vote of confidence.

Here is the thing, a top up order from MU (beyond its 5 initial firm orders) is more meaningful to COMAC than ICBC leasing's 100 orders. If C919 can consistently do 2 SHA-CTU type of R/Ts a day in a few months w/ competitive CASK to A320NEO, then MU can give up its 737s & go strictly w/ A320 & C919 series going forward.

Even the CN3 do not want to have 3 narrow body fleets. There is a lot of cost involved in that. Chinese airlines also have to compete. They cannot have C919s being out of action because COMAC picked a domestic supplier that wasn't ready
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top