COMAC C919

LesAdieux

Junior Member
Russia is certainly a vip friend for China. as for cooperation on aviation, China probably can't count too much on Russia. the Soviet was more than ten years behind the US on civil aviation when it broke up, thirty years on, they've made little progress.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
According to this video,the ability to examine and certify an commercial plane is even harder than designing one, this is an area China is particularly weak compare to the West. C-919 has been stuck in testing phase for several years already,this news from 2021/12/03 says that there is a total of 3273 test points and 276 flight test,1694 test points and 34 flight test have been completed as of now. So there is still a lot of testing work remains, the date that C-919 can finally be delivered to airline is still unclear at this moment.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As I have been saying in multiple threads about multiple tech topics, testing and verification is the hardest and most time consuming part of any technology, and commercial is always more demanding of consistency and high tolerances than military or research. These are necessary teething pains for Chinese industry. The only way out is through. The C919 is a sacrificial lamb for this learning process. If COMAC is serious about learning and growing as an organization things will get easier after this.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Since it was only under Trump that civilian aircraft industry was subjected to sanctions ( just two years ago), its incredible for Russia to have substituted all the systems with indigenous ones.

Not that I don't believe it. I do question the quality of the reworked product.Let's hope Russia figures this out because C929 needs the success.
Russia already had proven passenger aircraft systems from Tu-204.
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Russia already had proven passenger aircraft systems from Tu-204.
As i said, the quality is upto debate. You and me and most out there know that the Russian solutions won't be as good ( under the lenses of global airlines).

Btw, why did MC-21 program ever source systems from US/French/Israeli providers in the first place ? Same with the PW engines.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
As i said, the quality is upto debate. You and me and most out there know that the Russian solutions won't be as good ( under the lenses of global airlines).

Btw, why did MC-21 program ever source systems from US/French/Israeli providers in the first place ? Same with the PW engines.
Same reasons COMAC did, simplifies regulatory compliance and customer acquisition. Noticing a pattern?
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Same reasons COMAC did, simplifies regulatory compliance and customer acquisition. Noticing a pattern?
Exactly. But even without regulatory hurdles, I think it'd be naïve to conclude that Russian systems (and avionics esp) are qualitatively as competitive as EU/US solutions(it's circular, as regulations keep up with advancements in technology). Much capital has went into the latter.

Anyway, most of us are agreeing and nodding our heads here. No use in that. Fingers crossed for C919.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Exactly. But evewithout regulatory hurdles, I think it'd be naïve to conclude that Russian systems (and avionics esp) are qualitatively as competitive as EU/US solutions(it's circular, as regulations keep up with advancements in technology). Much capital has went into the latter.

Anyway, most of us are agreeing and nodding our heads here. No use in that. Fingers crossed for C919.
Highly doubtful Russia today would have as much difficulty with quality if they went full ingenious. Those 90s and early 2000s issues with quality were a result of an ailing economy not being able to provide sufficient resources, not a lack of know how. Very different situation today.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
As i said, the quality is upto debate. You and me and most out there know that the Russian solutions won't be as good ( under the lenses of global airlines).

Btw, why did MC-21 program ever source systems from US/French/Israeli providers in the first place ? Same with the PW engines.

It's better to be bad than nothing. The goal should be to make a sanctions proof domestic system. Trying for FAA regulatory approval is probably not going to happen at this point.
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Highly doubtful Russia today would have as much difficulty with quality if they went full ingenious. Those 90s and early 2000s issues with quality were a result of an ailing economy not being able to provide sufficient resources, not a lack of know how. Very different situation today.
I doubt it. Irkut has yet to decide on a provider for Avionics ( as of 2020). How they plan to replace Collins and Honeywell is unclear. EU systems ( French, German) are another and the Ukraine situation isn't looking good.

It's better to be bad than nothing. The goal should be to make a sanctions proof domestic system. Trying for FAA regulatory approval is probably not going to happen at this point.

Indeed, we may boil it rather than fry. We are also ready to wait. But where's the egg? I can't find any news about an Avionics breakthrough from Irkut. Even the sukhoi Superjet used French Avionics (Thales).
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
I doubt it. Irkut has yet to decide on a provider for Avionics ( as of 2020). How they plan to replace Collins and Honeywell is unclear. EU systems ( French, German) are another and the Ukraine situation isn't looking good.



Indeed, we may boil it rather than fry. We are also ready to wait. But where's the egg? I can't find any news about an Avionics breakthrough from Irkut. Even the sukhoi Superjet used French Avionics (Thales).
What makes passenger jets avionics so much more challenging than military transport?
 
Top