COMAC C929 Widebody Airliner

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
VERY speculative. To the point that even attempting to put a number on it is a bit facile. A truly honest assessment should realistically read "Rest of the World: we don't have a freaking clue?" :)

With uncertainty of that magnitude inherent in the production estimates, deriving the profit shares from it to split the project between the two partners is rather disingenuous. I'd resolutely object to that method too - find me a criterion that you can actually rely on for making a decision of this kind of importance!



Thing is, we don't need to look at big public projects the world over, most of which have at best a tenuous relevance as precedents for the CR929. Why try to gain insights on a civilian aerospace programme underwritten by the Chinese government from hydroelectic dams in Brazil or rail links in Switzerland? We already have a much more specific and pertinent example to refer to: the ARJ21, another civilian aerospace programme underwritten by the Chinese government.



"Somewhat"? In most other countries, the ARJ21 met the definition of a project that "didn't take off" several times over and would in all probability never even have made it as far as first flight. Yet China pressed on, indicating that civilian aerospace is such a high priority that no obstacle is too great.

While perhaps not outright zero, based on this precedent the risk of the CR929 being allowed to fail is so minuscule as to be not worth considering.



If the Russian home market was the same size as China's you might have a point, but it isn't. From Russian domestic airlines alone you can't get enough volume to make a profit. Apples and oranges.



It's not like the Russians have never built the rest of an airliner (including widebodies) before. In fact, to keep their hand in they are (nonsensically in my opinion) running a minor update of the Il-96 in parallel. A ripe target for cancellation and replacement with a clean-sheet, fully-Russian design if the CR929 falls apart.

It's an obscure fact, but Russia has even done considerable work on CFRP fuselages, to the extent of manufacturing a demonstrator fuselage section for the Il-114 turboprop in the 1990s. Unlike the CR929 which uses the Airbus panel approach this was a wound barrel like the 787, but with integrated geodesic stiffening structure. Both philosophies perform about equally, panels allow you to locally vary skin thickness while winding saves you a lot of fasteners. The Russian solution could have saved even more fasteners than the Boeing approach though, so it's an interesting wildcard.



I did not say there would be no benefit, but the difference is substantial. For example, final assembly (if there is a separate Russian line) would in fact see no benefit whatsoever.



You mean everybody just builds their part of the plane and all final assembly lines deliver to all markets based on availability? That's very similar to the way Airbus was organized and it is a successful and fair model. Each partner participates equally in the project's fortunes and the risk is shared evenly. If sales are 20% above prediction, production volumes go up 20% for everyone, if they are 50% below, volumes drop 50% for everyone.

It's the antithesis of the proposed deal where Russia carries a disproportionate part of the risk from uncertainty and market volatility*.



See above - there is a non-trivial chance that international sales will not materialize so the Russians can't just ignore that contingency their planning.

* Volatility is another aspect where a captive market works greatly in your favour that we hadn't even mentioned yet. While Airbus and Boeing ground to a halt under CoViD-19, COMAC kept delivering ARJ21s more or less according to schedule. If you believe that is because the ARJ21 is such a superb little plane, I have a bridge in to sell you.

Wow. I'm not sure where to start, so many points you made. Some good, some bad, and some irrelevant.

All I'm saying is that any project have risks. Some more than others. These risks has to be accounted for. At the moment, it is the Chinese that has to carry this risk, however small.

With regards to economy of scales. You have got it all wrong. I never suggested Airbus style sharing of work. I was answering your assertion that it wasn't fair to Russia as they won't gain from the economy of scale because their production is smaller. All I'm suggesting is both nations doesn't have to make the same parts. For example, Russia could make wings for both partners. Economy of scale is maintained.

And yes it is unfair to Russia to rely on just the Russian and international markets. As the Chinese markets is predicted to be bigger than both.

I've never claimed it was unfair. But what I said was it might be fair if one was a junior partner. Which looks like it is shaping it up to be.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think Russia should be an equal partner? If so, what equal cost they are sharing, and what equal benefits they are sharing? If they are sharing costs and benefits equally, then it is only fair they are equal partners. But I don't think this us the case, unless you can tell us differently.

Now regarding that bridge you got to sell? Can I forgo that opportunity this time if you don't mind. I've seen too many get burned in my life time.
 

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
BTW @Tirdent, I'm genuinely curious to know what makes the ARJ-21 a bad short leg, small load plane. I know it's based off an old MD design but clueless about civil aviation. Also could definitely benefit the thread if someone could explain the advanced wing and engine for the CR929.

Apart from record-breaking delays, which would have been even worse if service entry had been contingent on achieving normal standards of certification? According to people who are familiar with the actual (as opposed to brochure) weights, the ARJ21 is the heaviest modern airliner per passenger seat*, another dubious USP. And even supposing it had kept to its schedule and within its weight budget, it would not have done anything that the Embraer E-Jets weren't already bringing to the table by then. I'm sure it was a good apprenticeship for COMAC, but I don't expect the airline customers to share their enthusiasm.

As for the CR929 wing, as I've explained elsewhere the Russian process for manufacturing carbon fibre wings as pioneered on the MS-21 is the most advanced and efficient currently in use. It won't be inherently superior aerodynamically or structurally to what Boeing is doing on the 787 and 777X or Airbus on the A350XWB and A220, but deliver that performance at significantly lower manufacturing cost. This is because the structure is cured in an oven at atmospheric pressure instead of a pressurized *and* heated autoclave. Needless to say a pressure vessel large enough to hold widebody airliner wings is a fairly expensive piece of tooling (the size and requirements are not that far off a SSK pressure hull).

On the subject of engines, Russia is still at least 5 years ahead of China, especially in the civilian sector. That said, the PD-35 as currently envisaged is not a super exotic engine with a geared fan or something - its cycle parameters resemble a GEnx but with somewhat simplified, lighter architecture. Probably a good way to ensure decent reliability, which is just as important as high efficiency (an approach that is already being adopted with the PD-14).

All I'm saying is that any project have risks. Some more than others. These risks has to be accounted for. At the moment, it is the Chinese that has to carry this risk, however small.

CRAIC is officially a 50-50 joint venture, so I don't see how China is bearing the risk alone.

I never suggested Airbus style sharing of work. I was answering your assertion that it wasn't fair to Russia as they won't gain from the economy of scale because their production is smaller. All I'm suggesting is both nations doesn't have to make the same parts. For example, Russia could make wings for both partners. Economy of scale is maintained.

As I said, that is pretty much how Airbus is structured though. Non-Toulouse final assembly lines (CRAIC is to have only one final assembly site in Shanghai) were only established once production volumes made it an economically viable prospect.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think Russia should be an equal partner? If so, what equal cost they are sharing, and what equal benefits they are sharing? If they are sharing costs and benefits equally, then it is only fair they are equal partners. But I don't think this us the case, unless you can tell us differently.

Again, CRAIC is a 50-50 joint venture, so barring evidence to the contrary we have to expect that Russia is matching China's investment.

Wing development is typically the most challenging and expensive individual task in an airframe project, for obvious reasons.

* In case you were wondering, the leaders in this regard are apparently the ATR family. Probably one reason why they've been wiping the floor with the Dash 8.
 
Last edited:

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Apart from record-breaking delays, which would have been even worse if service entry had been contingent on achieving normal standards of certification? According to people who are familiar with the actual (as opposed to brochure) weights, the ARJ21 is the heaviest modern airliner per passenger seat*, another dubious USP. And even supposing it had kept to its schedule and within its weight budget, it would not have done anything that the Embraer E-Jets weren't already bringing to the table by then. I'm sure it was a good apprenticeship for COMAC, but I don't expect the airline customers to share their enthusiasm.

As for the CR929 wing, as I've explained elsewhere the Russian process for manufacturing carbon fibre wings as pioneered on the MS-21 is the most advanced and efficient currently in use. It won't be inherently superior aerodynamically or structurally to what Boeing is doing on the 787 and 777X or Airbus on the A350XWB and A220, but deliver that performance at significantly lower manufacturing cost. This is because the structure is cured in an oven at atmospheric pressure instead of a pressurized *and* heated autoclave. Needless to say a pressure vessel large enough to hold widebody airliner wings is a fairly expensive piece of tooling (the size and requirements are not that far off a SSK pressure hull).

On the subject of engines, Russia is still at least 5 years ahead of China, especially in the civilian sector. That said, the PD-35 as currently envisaged is not a super exotic engine with a geared fan or something - its cycle parameters resemble a GEnx but with somewhat simplified, lighter architecture. Probably a good way to ensure decent reliability, which is just as important as high efficiency (an approach that is already being adopted with the PD-14).



CRAIC is officially a 50-50 joint venture, so I don't see how China is bearing the risk alone.



As I said, that is pretty much how Airbus is structured though. Non-Toulouse final assembly lines (CRAIC is to have only one final assembly site in Shanghai) were only established once production volumes made it an economically viable prospect.



Again, CRAIC is a 50-50 joint venture, so barring evidence to the contrary we have to expect that Russia is matching China's investment.

Wing development is typically the most challenging and expensive individual task in an airframe project, for obvious reasons.

* In case you were wondering, the leaders in this regard are apparently the ATR family. Probably one reason why they've been wiping the floor with the Dash 8.

Ok. So if it's a 50% joint venture. Then why do you supposed that the sharing out if benefits is not 50%. Or is it?
 

weig2000

Captain
Looks like the CR929 project is in serious trouble...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Disputes over CR929 design and specifications come amid complaints about technology transfer and market access

by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
September 24, 2020

Serious conflicts are stalling Beijing and Moscow’s hook-up to design and develop a wide-body passenger jet to wrest business from Boeing and Airbus.

The pair’s CR929 project to launch a dual-aisle airliner is said to have come to a halt. Widespread dissension among Chinese and Russian officials and technicians may even threaten to unravel the venture, once touted by Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin as an example of what both countries could collaborate to achieve.

China and Russia are closing ranks against the West’s new tech iron curtain and isolation, especially when Washington is waging a tech war against China on multiple fronts.

The two powers are teaming up for programs from military to manufacturing. Beijing aims to draw on Moscow’s technical expertise while ailing Russian design bureaus and defense contractors are tapping new income streams while Beijing is on a spree importing technologies.

Still, the long-range passenger jet project is being delayed as Chinese and Russian participants argue about the specifications.

Citing a source within Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (Comac), the Chinese state-owned plane-maker involved in the CR929 project, Hong Kong’s Ming Pao Daily revealed a duel over the selection of key suppliers, a process that may be delayed for a year after experts from both countries failed to reach a consensus.

Russia’s United Aircraft Corp confirmed that the expected delivery of the jet that can fly up to 440 passengers in one class will be pushed back by three to four years to 2029. That means the CR929’s first commercial flight to carry fare-paying passengers has become a forlorn hope.

It has been more than four years since both countries agreed to pool their talents and teased the market with a passenger jet to poach orders off Boeing’s bestselling 787 and Airbus’ 330 and 340.

A joint venture between Comac and UAC was established at Shanghai’s Pudong airport in 2017, near Comac’s hangar where China’s indigenous narrow-body airliner C919 was taking shape.

Optimism was still in the air at Pudong last year, when UAC’s project coordinator and lead engineer was quoted by Xinhua as saying that the first delivery of CR929 could be as early as 2025. At the time, the amity between Beijing and Russia was at an all-time high with a flurry of reciprocal visits by Xi and Putin.

Yet now the fate of the CR929 appears to be up in the air, following reports citing Denis Manturov, Russia’s Minister of Industry and Trade, who revealed the discord between Moscow and Beijing over the transfer of technology and market access.

The minister, a heavyweight Putin protege, did not mince words and went so far as to allege that the Chinese were bent on snooping on Russian experts and getting hold of core, proprietary technology and solutions while refusing to open up their domestic market.

Before long there were counteraccusations from some Comac employees who took to the social media and forums popular among technicians to say Russia was only interested in selling parts to China without the goodwill to swap and share vital technology.

Manturov, nonetheless, has still sought to dismiss rumors about a total falling-out and assured that Russia would not pull out of the program and both sides would seek common ground.

Another question is UAC’s insistence to base the CR929’s fuselage design on the outmoded Russian jet Ilyushin IL-86, whose production ended in the 1990s. Comac has refused to adopt the “medieval” Soviet design.

It is also said that Russia also sought to replicate its cooperation model with India to only outsource the assembly of CR929 to Comac. Russia only transferred drawings of Su-35 stealth fighters to India for localized assembly but not its intellectual property about the fifth-generation warplane. In response, Comac categorically rejected the Russian plan which could reduce its role to merely an original equipment manufacturer.

An aeronautics professor with the Beihang University in Beijing told Asia Times that both countries would still realize the common need to share the hefty research and development outlay – the CR929 program is projected to cost US$13-20 billion – as well as to jointly promote the plane beyond their home markets.

“For long-range planes like CR929 to be commercially successful, they must find buyers across the globe as its range extends beyond borders and even continents,” the academic said.

“China and Russia working as one can feed into each other’s needs and work around any barriers and red tape in airworthiness certification as the United States and Europe may want to sabotage the process.

“China and Russia may institute their regulatory regime and together woo buyers from the third world, like those carriers from Africa, South Africa and Eastern Europe.

“Russia is still several notches above China in aeronautics and aerospace industries but China’s leverage is its deep pocket, market size and fat orders.”

The professor also said China could still count on its own ingenuity to develop the CR929, even though initially the plane would need engines from the West, like those from Rolls-Royce, to get airborne.

The fleet of Chinese carriers will include 2,000 new wide-body jets in the next 20 years as the world’s most populous nation is set to surpass the US as the world’s largest civil aviation market, according to estimates by China’s Civil Aviation Administration, though the forecast does not factor in the impact from Covid-19.

With CR929, Beijing wants domestic players like Comac to defend their home turf against offerings from Boeing and Airbus.

In the meantime, Chinese state media say Comac has been making headway towards the launch of an indigenous high-thrust turbofan engine that can be potentially fitted on the CR929.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
I don't know, the article sounds kind of fishy. From the design mockups we know of the CRAIC 929 it looks nothing like the Il-86.
Given Irkutsk's experience with the MC-21 I doubt the Russians would want to recycle an older airframe. They would likely scale up MC-21 technology in the worst case. In that case, the Russians could be skittish about sharing their wing manufacturing technology. So yeah I could see workshare conflicts happen. I think as long as China allows the Russians to manufacture the wing while they themselves manufacture the fuselage the Russians would be up to it. With regards to engines I think those were never part of the original deal. The deal was the Chinese and Russians would develop the engines on their own and there would also be a Western engine option. I think an engine partnership would be possible like with CFM and have the Chinese manufacture the cold sections of the engine while the Russians manufacture the hot sections. But that was never expected to happen so I don't know why the author of the article thinks there would be a joint engine project. There isn't AFAIK. It may happen that the CRAIC 929 project will fork and diverge like what hapenned with EFA but that article seems bogus to me.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I don't know, the article sounds kind of fishy. From the design mockups we know of the CRAIC 929 it looks nothing like the Il-86.
Given Irkutsk's experience with the MC-21 I doubt the Russians would want to recycle an older airframe. They would likely scale up MC-21 technology in the worst case. In that case, the Russians could be skittish about sharing their wing manufacturing technology. So yeah I could see workshare conflicts happen. I think as long as China allows the Russians to manufacture the wing while they themselves manufacture the fuselage the Russians would be up to it. With regards to engines I think those were never part of the original deal. The deal was the Chinese and Russians would develop the engines on their own and there would also be a Western engine option. I think an engine partnership would be possible like with CFM and have the Chinese manufacture the cold sections of the engine while the Russians manufacture the hot sections. But that was never expected to happen so I don't know why the author of the article thinks there would be a joint engine project. There isn't AFAIK. It may happen that the CRAIC 929 project will fork and diverge like what hapenned with EFA but that article seems bogus to me.


Agreed ... this sentence alone ruins everything:

1601011760665.png
 

KFX

New Member
Registered Member
Agreed ... this sentence alone ruins everything:

View attachment 63979
Could he be mistaking the Su-35 for PAK-FA/Su-57? Historically, India has always been annoyed that they built Russian jets, but never learned all that much.

As for CR929, in addition to the technological differences between the Russia and China, there also the language and trust issues. If the Germans and French had so much trouble with the A380, how are the Russians and Chinese, who can both be fairly tightlipped, get the CR929 programme operating efficiently? I also understand that there were a number of voices in Comac that wanted to go it alone for the widebody and dispense with Russian help altogether. Beijing is certainly willing to pump tons of money into Comac.

In addition there is the market issue. The only real market for CR929 will be China. Russian airlines might buy a few, but 90% of sales will be in China. Comac wants exclusive rights to Chinese sales.
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
Could he be mistaking the Su-35 for PAK-FA/Su-57? Historically, India has always been annoyed that they built Russian jets, but never learned all that much.

As for CR929, in addition to the technological differences between the Russia and China, there also the language and trust issues. If the Germans and French had so much trouble with the A380, how are the Russians and Chinese, who can both be fairly tightlipped, get the CR929 programme operating efficiently? I also understand that there were a number of voices in Comac that wanted to go it alone for the widebody and dispense with Russian help altogether. Beijing is certainly willing to pump tons of money into Comac.

In addition there is the market issue. The only real market for CR929 will be China. Russian airlines might buy a few, but 90% of sales will be in China. Comac wants exclusive rights to Chinese sales.
Russia have much stronger wing technology and construction techniques vs. China. And wings are the most important part/valuable part of a plane.
 

weig2000

Captain
Could he be mistaking the Su-35 for PAK-FA/Su-57? Historically, India has always been annoyed that they built Russian jets, but never learned all that much.

As for CR929, in addition to the technological differences between the Russia and China, there also the language and trust issues. If the Germans and French had so much trouble with the A380, how are the Russians and Chinese, who can both be fairly tightlipped, get the CR929 programme operating efficiently? I also understand that there were a number of voices in Comac that wanted to go it alone for the widebody and dispense with Russian help altogether. Beijing is certainly willing to pump tons of money into Comac.

In addition there is the market issue. The only real market for CR929 will be China. Russian airlines might buy a few, but 90% of sales will be in China. Comac wants exclusive rights to Chinese sales.

I don't really know to what degree we can trust that news, but I have always had my doubt about how solid a foundation this joint project is built on. It is felt that this was imposed from the above (may even at the presidential level from both sides), not something driven by the respective companies out of their interest.

From the Chinese side, they have the market, capital, technologies but lacking in experiences. The important thing to remember is that the Chinese interest is not purely commercial, but more strategic. They want to further develop its commercial aircraft industry.

For the Russians, they don't have the market, but have more experience and expertise in large aircraft. They're obviously to want to have commercial success in a key market and have the opportunity to maintain and further develop their technologies and expertise in the area. Technologies and expertise are their only leverage against the Chinese. They don't want to lose it.

So we can see the problem here. If the Russians are not willing to share the technologies developed for this project, there is significantly less incentive for the Chinese to take Russia as a partner. The Chinese are OK with spending more time and investing more capital to develop the necessary technologies and expertise. Unless, of course, this project will never fly off the ground without Russian input. I doubt that's the case.

Some serious compromise needs to be made, otherwise this collaborative project will fade away. The Chinese will probably go its separate way.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Sure the Russians would buy less airframes. But an aircraft like the CRAIC 929 which is in the same class as the Airbus A330 has serious potential for other uses. Just look at the A330 MRTT for example. In the long term it could replace the Il-76 as both a tanker and AWACS platform.

The Russians are important to the project for several reasons. They have more experience with airframe design and especially wing design plus they have more mature engine technology. The Kremlin has already allocated funds for the PD-35 engine's initial development but the project is quite ambitious as it will use a fair amount of new technologies even for them. It is supposed to use SiC in the hot sections and composite turbofan blades. Their previous engine, the PD-14, uses metal alloys in the hot sections and hollow titanium turbofan blades. That should make it competitive vs current Western engine designs. AFAIK the proposed Chinese engine design is supposedly more conventional to reduce design risk. The Russian engine design, if it goes through, which I think it will, is an insurance policy against either their own engine program failing or Western sanctions on engine sales to China.
 
Last edited:
Top