The publicly-held consensus for C919's localization rate at present is around 60%. How much is the actual localization rate, IYO?
Last edited:
COMAC C919
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
MA700 is a Chinese plane. Canada wanted to look tough on commies like the Americans.
Unless COMAC takes away the option of LEAP-1C, then CJ1000A is
This is not military. This is commercial market. You actually need spare parts that can be maintained & supported. Or else, airlines can't fly your aircraft
of course. everything is possible if someone is willing to pay the bill of getting it certified. And then, it's up to the airlines to choose it
Again, airlines have to choose CJ1000A. It's not as simple as Chinese govt telling MU to fly C919 with CJ1000A. They already have a fleet of C919 with Leap-1C and you are going to get them to have the other half with a completely unproven engine? After they've already taken the risk of flying a new plane with uncertain economics and serviceability?
sure, you can do it, but then you better subsidize the airline big time for taking such a big risk of using an unproven & likely less economic engine
Well the alternative is to do nothing and then scramble for an alternative if LEAP is sanctioned.
60% by what? Weight? Number of parts? Value in Yuan/Dollars?
I remember hearing similar localization rates with regards to the Sukhoi Superjet and we know how well localized that was. Basically the airframe.
that's up to the airline to decide, right? Airline can always incorporate CJ1000A if LEAP does get sanctioned. But if you are CA and order 100 C919s, you can't have 30 of them out of service because your engine is having problems and can't get maintained.
Then you are basically bankrupt.
Remember, SSJ killed Interjet
as per their statement, 60 percent of C919 parts/components. this statement given during Zhuhai air show 2022.
this include all joint ventures manufactured in mainland China..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i m very closely following C919 localization rate. process is going on with full pace. i think i should have post one by one. which component/part have localized already.
Last edited:
Please read my older post i have Quote below. if anyone didn't read. very informative and give us the idea of C919 localization rate..
16 major Joint ventures were established in 2009-2015 time period. and there is a lot tech transfer happened during that time. all JVs were 50/50 partnership with local suppliers. western firms wanted market share and money hence happily join hands..
most of Joint ventures are now sourcing components/material from local firms.
for example,
Landing Gear system was also a joint venture and up until 2019 they were importing all components and parts but that has changed now. in 2019, Chinese local suppliers have replaced key forgings parts of the landing gear like main outer cylinder forgings and outer precision wheel hubs. those Chinese companies are Erzhong Wanhang and southwest Aluminum..
16 major Joint ventures were established in 2009-2015 time period. and there is a lot tech transfer happened during that time. all JVs were 50/50 partnership with local suppliers. western firms wanted market share and money hence happily join hands..
most of Joint ventures are now sourcing components/material from local firms.
for example,
Landing Gear system was also a joint venture and up until 2019 they were importing all components and parts but that has changed now. in 2019, Chinese local suppliers have replaced key forgings parts of the landing gear like main outer cylinder forgings and outer precision wheel hubs. those Chinese companies are Erzhong Wanhang and southwest Aluminum..
It's not like you change the turbofan of one model for another as easily as you change a wheel on a car.
For example, in the SSJ-100, to install the PD-8, the Russians also had to replace the pylon that supports it, then modifications to the control center + other modifications must be made.
The hypothesis of also re-engineering the SSJ-100s which are currently powered by the French/Russian SaM146 turbofan had been raised since the French side caused sanctions and stopped supplying spare parts, but at the moment research has led to the conclusion that the cost any changes would make the operation very expensive.
So either the aircraft is designed from the beginning with the possibility that it can receive different engine models, or it becomes very difficult to do so later when hypothetically the turbofan used until now due to external causes is no longer supplied or supported.
My apologies if this question was answered before.
I was reading some comparisons between the C919 and the 320neo. While it is understandable that the latter would have the edge, what caught my eye is that the C919 loads less fuel than the original A320, even though it has a larger OEW. Furthermore, it embarks quite a bit fewer passengers. Somewhat surprisingly, the C919 falls far short of the original A320 in range, despite having more modern engines: 4200km vs 6100km.
Why is that the case?
I was reading some comparisons between the C919 and the 320neo. While it is understandable that the latter would have the edge, what caught my eye is that the C919 loads less fuel than the original A320, even though it has a larger OEW. Furthermore, it embarks quite a bit fewer passengers. Somewhat surprisingly, the C919 falls far short of the original A320 in range, despite having more modern engines: 4200km vs 6100km.
Why is that the case?