COMAC C929 Widebody Airliner
- Thread starter Iron Man
- Start date
This is a good opportunity to kill off that design before major money is even poured into it. Instead, Comac can use the opportunity to create a whole new design all by itself.
And by all new design I mean basically take the A300 design and modernize it as much as possible. Size wise, capacity wise and even to a fair extent range wise it's the perfect plane for the needs of the Chinese market for the next several decades. And would even do nicely in export market segment, assuming geopolitics would some day allow that.
And by all new design I mean basically take the A300 design and modernize it as much as possible. Size wise, capacity wise and even to a fair extent range wise it's the perfect plane for the needs of the Chinese market for the next several decades. And would even do nicely in export market segment, assuming geopolitics would some day allow that.
A300, as in the first-flight-in-1972 A300?
In what way? Why would airlines want a modernized A300. A330 and A340 fuselage are both based off A300. What kind of future do you think both of these airliners have?
Like I said, the only major Russian component in initial production would be the wings.
And Russia said they were still undecided if they would build a factory in China to make the wings, or one in the Russian Far East.
If there are any issues with putting the factory in the Russian Far East, they will just put it in Shanghai next to the Comac facility. Or some other place in China. They will structure the ownership of the facility to evade sanctions.
As for the PD-35 engines those are optional and not supposed to be used in initial versions of the aircraft. They will only be available several years after the supposed first flight.
If the West imposes export controls on aircraft parts for the CR929 which prevent resale to Russia then they just won't export aircraft to Russia until those components are replaced and that is that.
The sanctions will have zero impact on joint design of the aircraft or wind tunnel testing and things like that.
I suspect in the end we will have two production facilities. One in China and another in Russia. This was probably always going to happen anyways. If Russia cannot afford to build a new production facility for the aircraft they might go for the twin-engine modification of the Il-96 like some in the Russian industry have wanted. But I still think that is a mistake. Il-96 is obsolete.
Copying the A300? The A300 is about as old as the Il-86 which was the basis of the Il-96 design. The CR929 is supposed to be a new aircraft design. Not a rehash of an old one. The Il-96 has a similar technological level to the A340. With the exception of the avionics.
And Russia said they were still undecided if they would build a factory in China to make the wings, or one in the Russian Far East.
If there are any issues with putting the factory in the Russian Far East, they will just put it in Shanghai next to the Comac facility. Or some other place in China. They will structure the ownership of the facility to evade sanctions.
As for the PD-35 engines those are optional and not supposed to be used in initial versions of the aircraft. They will only be available several years after the supposed first flight.
If the West imposes export controls on aircraft parts for the CR929 which prevent resale to Russia then they just won't export aircraft to Russia until those components are replaced and that is that.
The sanctions will have zero impact on joint design of the aircraft or wind tunnel testing and things like that.
I suspect in the end we will have two production facilities. One in China and another in Russia. This was probably always going to happen anyways. If Russia cannot afford to build a new production facility for the aircraft they might go for the twin-engine modification of the Il-96 like some in the Russian industry have wanted. But I still think that is a mistake. Il-96 is obsolete.
Copying the A300? The A300 is about as old as the Il-86 which was the basis of the Il-96 design. The CR929 is supposed to be a new aircraft design. Not a rehash of an old one. The Il-96 has a similar technological level to the A340. With the exception of the avionics.
A300 design as in cabin diameter and cabin length of A300. Which would result in similarly sized plane.
There might be some differences in wingspan and overall weights would be different of course.
Naturally it would NOT be the same plane. 50+ years of technological advancement means it'd have novel materials, better wing design, better engines, etc etc.
But as for size - A300 sized plane is in my opinion a better fit for the foreseeable market conditions that Chinese airlines might face than a CR929.
There might be some differences in wingspan and overall weights would be different of course.
Naturally it would NOT be the same plane. 50+ years of technological advancement means it'd have novel materials, better wing design, better engines, etc etc.
But as for size - A300 sized plane is in my opinion a better fit for the foreseeable market conditions that Chinese airlines might face than a CR929.
The market for commercial planes is set by the seat per mile per fuel consumption metric combined with their total range and how that fits certain routes, not by the size class of the plane. A300 sized planes no longer exist in the market because they’re just not an efficient size class for that metric. The reason the 787 and A350 exist is because larger planes that carry more passengers make more money and reduce operational and fixed costs for the same per mile fuel consumption on the same routes . If you really need to service 200 on short routes you stretch your narrow body. Otherwise you do larger long range planes that do point to point routes. A300 sized planes aren’t competitive anymore because they aren’t as economical for commercial airliners.
Of course seat per cost is key. Which is exactly why a somewhat smaller plane than the CR929 would be ideal. Especially given the geopolitical situation China will be in.
A321neo is great and all, but it's not a true middle of the market design. Boeing was very close to launching such a design, but the western market is not (yet) ready for such a design. It just doesn't make sense to spend tens of billions when the existing designs can serve the high and low ends of that middle of the market piece of the pie. But when the next generation of planes come - it may indeed be worthwhile to create such a plane even for Boeing.
However, the Chinese airline companies' market, especially one limited by future political barriers that are bound to spring up, is going to be just ripe for such a design even earlier. They don't have existing planes to encroach on the higher end of said market.
Heck, even the low end (C919) is likely gonna be in demand for the internal Chinese market so much that super long range optimized versions like A321neo will not even make sense to get invested in for a long time to come. At the same time, SOME sort of longer ranged plane is going to be needed, a bit longer ranged than even A321neo can offer.
So investing in an even more optimized, true middle of the market design, will make more sense for china then trying to do what A321neo did.
China will be in a position where Europe was in the 1970s and 1980s, when they launched A300. Lots of medium length routes outside China, but very few long range ones. (of course, adjusted for this day and age. Back in 1980s, A300 could reach over the Atlantic and that was enough. For China in the near future, reaching Europe/Middle east would be enough. Not only enough but optimal. As going for longer reach means plane is less efficient on those medium routes.
China certainly doesn't have the need or money to waste and make two widebody plane types. Middle range routes are more plentiful and there's less competition in the near future for those, until Boeing or Airbus get on that bandwagon. (Not that western aligned countries will be buying COMAC planes but maybe a few sales to "neutral" countries might be achieved)
Using a 12 000 km plane on such medium range routes would not be economical. So out of the two designs, a A300 sized nine-ish thousand km plane would be a better choice. Especially with a sister variant - an enlongated shorter range variant of similar MTOW which would sacrifice some range for extra seats (to serve the middle east/turkey etc)
TL,DR: There will be far too few profitable direct lines to Africa and there will not be any lines the North America for Chinese made planes and possibly even Chinese airlines period. Hence a very long ranged plane with a high MTOW is not the optimal solution for the needs of Chinese airlines.
A321neo is great and all, but it's not a true middle of the market design. Boeing was very close to launching such a design, but the western market is not (yet) ready for such a design. It just doesn't make sense to spend tens of billions when the existing designs can serve the high and low ends of that middle of the market piece of the pie. But when the next generation of planes come - it may indeed be worthwhile to create such a plane even for Boeing.
However, the Chinese airline companies' market, especially one limited by future political barriers that are bound to spring up, is going to be just ripe for such a design even earlier. They don't have existing planes to encroach on the higher end of said market.
Heck, even the low end (C919) is likely gonna be in demand for the internal Chinese market so much that super long range optimized versions like A321neo will not even make sense to get invested in for a long time to come. At the same time, SOME sort of longer ranged plane is going to be needed, a bit longer ranged than even A321neo can offer.
So investing in an even more optimized, true middle of the market design, will make more sense for china then trying to do what A321neo did.
China will be in a position where Europe was in the 1970s and 1980s, when they launched A300. Lots of medium length routes outside China, but very few long range ones. (of course, adjusted for this day and age. Back in 1980s, A300 could reach over the Atlantic and that was enough. For China in the near future, reaching Europe/Middle east would be enough. Not only enough but optimal. As going for longer reach means plane is less efficient on those medium routes.
China certainly doesn't have the need or money to waste and make two widebody plane types. Middle range routes are more plentiful and there's less competition in the near future for those, until Boeing or Airbus get on that bandwagon. (Not that western aligned countries will be buying COMAC planes but maybe a few sales to "neutral" countries might be achieved)
Using a 12 000 km plane on such medium range routes would not be economical. So out of the two designs, a A300 sized nine-ish thousand km plane would be a better choice. Especially with a sister variant - an enlongated shorter range variant of similar MTOW which would sacrifice some range for extra seats (to serve the middle east/turkey etc)
TL,DR: There will be far too few profitable direct lines to Africa and there will not be any lines the North America for Chinese made planes and possibly even Chinese airlines period. Hence a very long ranged plane with a high MTOW is not the optimal solution for the needs of Chinese airlines.
So, this proposed idea is basically what Airbus tried to promote with A330R. Basically, putting a shorter range wide body for short haul travel. One of the main markets envisioned here was China. Guess what, it flopped big time. Got very few orders. The economics of wide body aircraft simply isn't as good as narrow body.
Think about it this way, On A321NEO, you have 1 aisle vs 6 seats per row. In business class, you have around 1 seat per side per row (so 2 seats per row). If we translate this to something like A330 which typically seats 2-4-2 in economy. You have 2 aisles vs 8 seats per row. The economy of that is just not good. You will also find that it's really hard to fit all lie flat business cabin while getting space usage of Y to J to around 3:1 (which you can achieve with A321NEO). Basically, space efficiency for wide bodies isn't as good as A321NEO. That's why when Airbus rolled out A321XLR, it's been one of the top sellers. TATL market will see a lot of A321s replace A330s and 787-8 in the next 10 years.
There is a lot of value in having fewer fleet types. There is a lot of cost involved in adding additional fleet types.
There are other reasons for single aisle aircraft. Most terminal gates are only configured for certain wingspan. In North America, most of the gates can only fit A320/B737 class aircraft. Get beyond that, you need a wide body gates. Airlines really don't want to do that for many reasons.
So when China develops its next fleet type. If it really wants to hit where the demand is, it would be in the large single aisle. So base model about 200 seat in high density format. First stretch would aim for about 230 seat in high density format. And second stretch would aim for about 270 seat. The first stretch model should have have a long ranged version that can fly 5000+ miles. That's something the market would want.
Think about it this way, On A321NEO, you have 1 aisle vs 6 seats per row. In business class, you have around 1 seat per side per row (so 2 seats per row). If we translate this to something like A330 which typically seats 2-4-2 in economy. You have 2 aisles vs 8 seats per row. The economy of that is just not good. You will also find that it's really hard to fit all lie flat business cabin while getting space usage of Y to J to around 3:1 (which you can achieve with A321NEO). Basically, space efficiency for wide bodies isn't as good as A321NEO. That's why when Airbus rolled out A321XLR, it's been one of the top sellers. TATL market will see a lot of A321s replace A330s and 787-8 in the next 10 years.
There is a lot of value in having fewer fleet types. There is a lot of cost involved in adding additional fleet types.
There are other reasons for single aisle aircraft. Most terminal gates are only configured for certain wingspan. In North America, most of the gates can only fit A320/B737 class aircraft. Get beyond that, you need a wide body gates. Airlines really don't want to do that for many reasons.
So when China develops its next fleet type. If it really wants to hit where the demand is, it would be in the large single aisle. So base model about 200 seat in high density format. First stretch would aim for about 230 seat in high density format. And second stretch would aim for about 270 seat. The first stretch model should have have a long ranged version that can fly 5000+ miles. That's something the market would want.