COMAC C919

Quickie

Quickie

Colonel
A technical analysis requested by a client and a write-up intended for publication in news media can be very different in the way the type of information is used and interpreted.

In the case of the latter, the discrepancy in the technical accuracy can easily be explained away with "unconfirmed information" in the early days, and really who is going to remember what was written one year down the road anyway?
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Quickie said:
A technical analysis requested by a client and a write-up intended for publication in news media can be very different in the way the type of information is used and interpreted.

In the case of the latter, the discrepancy in the technical accuracy can easily be explained away with "unconfirmed information" in the early days, and really who is going to remember what was written one year down the road anyway?
Click to expand...
Even a technical analysis by a client could end up being off, or simply “not up to date”. Usually when you actually write the report you throw in all sorts of caveats that you can get away with not mentioning in your public commentary. Especially because in product engineering things change all the time, especially if you “miss” spec. There’s such a thing as sustaining engineering, and sometimes that process starts before your prototype are even finished testing, especially when that testing is not even production testing but certification testing.

But anyways for that specific piece on the C919 those possible ways of interpreting public statements are all speculative. For now I’m just curious about where they got their “it’s overweight” claim from, seeing as that hasn’t seemed to be reported anywhere else. This piece of information should be pretty easy to validate.
 
T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
latenlazy said:
Without any details I don’t know why I should take their conclusions seriously over people who work on the project.
Click to expand...

Again, it may or may not be conjecture - for obvious reasons LNC won't be telling either way. I'm certainly not ready to dismiss an aircraft that has not even been certified yet on this basis, I'm merely explaining that the claim comes from an outfit that is at least theoretically in a position to know. I'd be a lot more skeptical if it originated somewhere else, where you could legitimately question the very idea that the required access was available.

I will say that because...

latenlazy said:
Lots of details of plane designs aren’t openly advertised after all.
Click to expand...

... your assertion that...

latenlazy said:
This piece of information should be pretty easy to validate.
Click to expand...

... doesn't quite ring true. And even if you were to ask, " Dear COMAC, is your C919 overweight to the point of damaging its commercial prospects?", well, what's the answer you'd expect to get, and would you find it 100% satisfactory, all things considered? Plenty of caveats apply here, too.

At this point the claim gets the equivalent of a raised eyebrow from me, nothing more, nothing less. Ultimately we'll have to wait for a couple of years after EIS before we get somewhat reliable indications.
 
Last edited:
by78

by78

General
Cold weather testing.

51860284908_e4a736548d_k.jpg
51860284928_4ca8fb00be_k.jpg
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
There isn't one, to my knowledge. At least not from any officials. All the previous such estimates are a few years old now and likely not valid anymore. The fact that we do not have some new, up to date official timetable announced may indicate they don't know when all the testing and development may be finished either. So... I'd personally put it in the "it'll be done when it'd done" category. At least until we get a new announcement from an official source.
 
S

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
weig2000 said:
I kind of agree that a medium-weight, turboprop-powered transporter is increasingly less justified.

Instead, they should focus on Y-20 and ramp up the production of Y-20 and YU-20. They will serve transporter and tanker needs.

For special-purpose aircraft, I think they should seriously consider adapting C919 with domestic subsystems and engine, something they will have to do for the C919 program anyway now if they're not doing it already. C919 has used a lot of foreign subsystems both by necessity and because of the goal of making it easier to get certified by the US and EU. The circumstance has changed now. A military version of C919 is better than the presumed Y-9 in many respects. It can leverage the supply and maintenance base of the civilian C919 fleet in the future.
Click to expand...

I remember kicking off this exact discussion some time ago.
The talk kind of died off because:
1. Not happening without CJ-1000
2. If the military wanted to make it happen due to national need, it could have develop a parallel project with all Chinese subsystems, but probably the cost is not justified
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top