COMAC C919

taxiya said:

This part is partially working and partially not. The fact that Boeing aircraft can land and take off in China and pass over Chinese air space is because CAAC approves it, not because FAA certified it. Any aviation jurisdiction may choose to accept FAA certification, but may choose not to. For example, this time around the Ethiopian ET302 crash, CAAC was the first to ground all 737MAX before FAA, so are the Europeans and Indonesians etc. North America is the last airspace that 737MAX is allowed to operate.

If China believes that US (president or FAA) is blocking C919's certification in any way, Boeing's aircraft will be hit (grounding current models and no approvals for coming models). Banning Boeing's aircrafts over Chinese air space essentially kills Boeing because even Boeing aircrafts from any other countries have to fly around China, in some cases that is not possible without heavy cost penalty incurred by extra mileage and stop-overs.

Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken. C919 already has Uk /European certification? FAA cerification seems to be hit by delays according to these two articles, so I wonder if it is intentional.






I have not kept up with C919 matters, so CFM engines are now out of bounds for Comac?

Gatekeeper said:

Yes, but there's nothing to stop you know who to put sanctions on ANY companies, inside or outside his jurisdiction.
As such, C919 could still be jeopardize.

Click to expand...

Tirdent said:

Depends on how that ban is implemented. If it's structured like CAATSA the short-term damage to the Chinese side could still be debilitating, as it would not only block US suppliers from dealing with China but also ban foreign entities that continue to do business with the Chinese from the US market. The latter remains a far bigger source of income to most European aerospace suppliers than China, so forcing them to pick either one or the other can result in only one outcome.

Click to expand...

China's long term goal is without a doubt to have all systems developed in house.

For the short term, of course there could be problems but this measure is usually reserved for small rogue states for actions involving nuclear weapons, terrorism or war crimes; for the US to use this based obviously on "We don't want competition from China" it would be a very ugly overplay for everyone to see. The US has already overplayed this tactic many times to a lesser extent angering European countries with the ban on Iran, Venezuela, etc... Every time the US uses this tactic, it adds to the opposing scales a bit. While each individual transaction is usually clear that it's more profitable to do business with the US than with X, as the weights add up and you include an anger of having the freedom to choose your business partners taken away by the US, one day, the scale will tip and a stampede of countries/companies will choose the freedom to do business with everyone rather than being strong-armed by the US. And that's not to mention that China is a HUGE and growing weight to add to the opposing scales. They don't get bigger than this.

The kid on the playground who always uses "If you'r friends with him then you can't be friends with me" will eventually end up alone.

In either case, I prefer slow and solid moving forward rather than shortcuts on US tech, which is like building your plane with time-bomb components on it.

B.I.B. said:

Unless I'm mistaken. C919 already has Uk /European certification? FAA cerification seems to be hit by delays according to these two articles, so I wonder if it is intentional.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I have not kept up with C919 matters, so CFM engines are now out of bounds for Comac?

Click to expand...

C919 has not get any certificate yet, not even from China. I doubt it has started any certification flight.
I think you may have confused with the agreement of cross-certification process between CAAC and FAA, and the recent CAAC with EASA agreements. They are only agreements of cross-certifying types. Not certification of any specific aircraft, in our discussion C919.

CFM LEAP-1C is still available as Trump has not banned it, but it depends on how far Trump will go. However, China is holding Boeings's throat right now. That is what I have been saying in the bolds texts in my post.

manqiangrexue said:

China's long term goal is without a doubt to have all systems developed in house.

For the short term, of course there could be problems but this measure is usually reserved for small rogue states for actions involving nuclear weapons, terrorism or war crimes; for the US to use this based obviously on "We don't want competition from China" it would be a very ugly overplay for everyone to see. The US has already overplayed this tactic many times to a lesser extent angering European countries with the ban on Iran, Venezuela, etc... Every time the US uses this tactic, it adds to the opposing scales a bit. While each individual transaction is usually clear that it's more profitable to do business with the US than with X, as the weights add up and you include an anger of having the freedom to choose your business partners taken away by the US, one day, the scale will tip and a stampede of countries/companies will choose the freedom to do business with everyone rather than being strong-armed by the US. And that's not to mention that China is a HUGE and growing weight to add to the opposing scales. They don't get bigger than this.

The kid on the playground who always uses "If you'r friends with him then you can't be friends with me" will eventually end up alone.

Click to expand...

In a idea free market world, an entity, be it an individual, a company or a country should have the freedom to trade with whoever they preceed to give them the best value (not necessary the cheapest).

If this "freedom" is hampered by fear of certain country's behaviours, then I fear protectionists have gain the upper hand, and the global growth will slowed.
All the hard work of the past forty years of lifting millions of people out of poverty could be jeopardize.

gelgoog said:

I also think the engine situation would be particularly problematic. Both top engines in this weight category are the CFM Leap (which is a partnership between French Safran and US General Electric) and the PW1100 (by US/Canadian Pratt & Whitney). Other than the Russian PD-14 I can't think of any modern engine which is far enough in testing.

Click to expand...

Hasn't RR suggested their interest in providing engines to C919?

To people who is worried about C919, just think about Boeing 737 MAX, not only Chinese airlines, but also Chines airspace for it to pass over. I certainly don't wish it goes that far, but you never know.

First flight of 103 via LKJ86
May 22, 2019

Nice!

104 is on the production line should roll out soon followed by 105 and 106 in 2019

taxiya said:

To people who is worried about C919, just think about Boeing 737 MAX, not only Chinese airlines, but also Chines airspace for it to pass over. I certainly don't wish it goes that far, but you never know.

Click to expand...

Can you believe that FAA passed the certificate to Boeing for 737 Max because it was considered a “modification” aircraft rather than a new type

They brought the engines forward which are bigger and renamed it 737 Max while at the same time saying it was a new model which is more efficient

Bringing the engines forward meant the aircraft could stall, but for that they installed a software to avoid stalling

Problem is the software relies on one single sensor and if it fails it could stall the plane and we know that’s how over 300 people seen now dead

Yet FAA never asked for the details it was considered acceptable to rely on one sensor

FAA is not strict they are just political and will never allow to certify Chinese planes because of competition

Hendrik_2000 said:

First flight of 103 via LKJ86
May 22, 2019
....

Click to expand...

But why maiden flight?? No. 103 already flew on 28. December 2018 for the first time.