antiterror13
Brigadier
so, in theory the US could ban the sale of C919 to Chinese companies as it has more than 10% US components
... this is getting hilarious
COMAC C919
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
so, in theory the US could ban the sale of C919 to Chinese companies as it has more than 10% US components
... this is getting hilarious
Now, I'm not techy. All I know is, all airlines are after the latest engines. But they are planes out there flying with other engines. So why insist with this particular one?
It doesn't work like this in real life. Look at the pressure USA put all other nations under over: Huawei, Iran, North Korea. I could go on! but you get the picture.
Spot on, I couldn't put it better myself!
Which is why China is developing this plane. China knows it won't get any orders outside of China or even certification. But no matter.
China gain:
Experience
Buy home grown planes leading to aircraft industrial infrastructure.
A base for future development.
Less revenue for foreign makers, as they will find it harder to compete inside China.
so, in theory the US could ban the sale of C919 to Chinese companies as it has more than 10% US components
Which is why Trump is flip flopping. Its not just the GE engines!
Actually, there are no non-US engine options that are competitive. There are two planes that are competitive. A320 Neo and B737Max. They use either the LEAP engine by CFM or Pratt and Whitney engine. Both are largely US designs. If one wants to say that Russian MC21 is also going to be comeptitive, that one uses the Pratt and Whitney engine and there's the domestic PD-14 engine option, but somehow i don't believe that one is going to be competitive in the world market.
So what you are saying is the engines from Rose Royce is not competitive!?
Not the current ones, only that RR has nothing in the class of the LEAP X available.
Why would one expect an R&B group to give GE a run for its money in the jet engine business?
They probably have a preliminary concept sitting on a shelf - when RR left the International Aero Engines joint venture, it was with an eye toward pitching a new narrow body engine design of their own. IIRC I have a Russian presentation somewhere comparing the PD-14 engine architecture to its Western counterparts and the CFM56 which included the RR concept (RB285? It was a Trent-style three-shaft layout). Unfortunately, the lead that GE and especially former IAE partners P&W had in terms of expected entry into service date proved impossible to overcome, so the effort quickly faltered, leaving RR outside the narrow body market altogether.
It's hard to say whether they would be interested in the C919, politically their lower exposure to Boeing compared to Airbus could make it viable, though Brexit might be a problem (economic ties shifting toward the US). While development would not start completely from scratch and a left-field narrow body opportunity has its attractions, the company has moved on in the meantime. There are persistent durability problems on the Trent 1000 to contend with and R&D resources have since been committed to next-gen wide body engines (UltraFan) instead.
From the Chinese perspective it's also a difficult call whether waiting for a clean-sheet RR engine is worthwhile - the greater the improvements over the RB285 (which was unable to compete) are, the longer the delay will be. By contrast, the PD-14 is basically production-ready (it is already certified in Russia!) *now*, leaving only the work related to airframe integration. Are the anticipated performance advantages over the Russian alternative sufficient to justify waiting several years longer? Perhaps if COMAC can foresee that airframe testing and certification are so badly protracted that even a clean-sheet engine won't be the long pole in the tent it might make sense, otherwise just go for the PD-14.