COMAC C929 Widebody Airliner

AF-1

Junior Member
Registered Member
Is MA-700 equipped with AES-500 engines? It performed 3 test flights with those engines?
 

ReneDad

New Member
Besides some important construction components, the real advantage of the MC-21 over the C919 is that it will be immune to any sanctions that put the production of the aircraft at risk since everything will be made in Russia.
There are precedents, remember the Chinese MA-700 already from the start of production of the prototype, but even more so the Russian SSJ-100 Superjet which was already in production and from night to morning was left without the components produced in the countries that imposed sanctions , including the engines which were half produced in France, without new components and without spare parts.
Now they are taking action and the aircraft will be completely Russian, but time will be needed to do this.
So to repeat myself, the major superiority of the MC-21 and also the new SJ-100 is that they are immune to today's or tomorrow's sanctions

You can not get correct results by comparing something which Russia WILL/would achieve in the future to those China HAS already achieved by now, then conclude that Russia is doing better than China.

If you removed all "WILL" from your statements you would find that currently MC-21 and SSJ-100 are not immune from Western sanctions at all.

Even in the near future, I doubt that after the substitution of imported material, the new self-sufficient versions of MC-21 and SSJ-100 would still be able to meet their original specifications which was set before the sanction. There already are reports saying that the new domestic MC-21 will be 6 tons heaver than the prototype which was built before the sanction. I guess most carbon fiber composite parts have been replaced by aluminum alloy from Brezhnev-era.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Even in the near future, I doubt that after the substitution of imported material, the new self-sufficient versions of MC-21 and SSJ-100 would still be able to meet their original specifications which was set before the sanction. There already are reports saying that the new domestic MC-21 will be 6 tons heaver than the prototype which was built before the sanction. I guess most carbon fiber composite parts have been replaced by aluminum alloy from Brezhnev-era.
That increase in MC-21 weight tidbit comes from a bullshit report by Kommersant. You should not put any credence to it. Kommersant has always had a liberal slant. So of course any state run program is supposed to be a basket case.
People in the actual industry already said that the Kommersant article is totally bogus. They basically confused an increase in maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft with an increase in the actual weight of the aircraft. The maximum takeoff weight was increased after further static tests of the airframe. I need not remind you that an increase in maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) and thus payload is a good thing. Not a bad thing. The journalists at Kommersant are complete retards.

Another bogus claim Kommersant made was that the MC-21 does not meet the required max speed parameter. But the thing is they conflate the maximum allowed speed parameter for the prototypes acting under flight law restraints with what the aircraft can actually do. And will achieve once testing is over.

All reports we have on the Russian carbon composites claim similar weight for same specifications. The Russians have worse quality fibers (used to be imported from Japan), but stronger adhesive (used to be imported from the US) than the former imports. The resulting composite material (used to be imported from Europe) meets the required strength and weight parameters.

This is the company which makes the carbon fibers and composites:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
That increase in MC-21 weight tidbit comes from a bullshit report by Kommersant. You should not put any credence to it. Kommersant has always had a liberal slant. So of course any state run program is supposed to be a basket case.
People in the actual industry already said that the Kommersant article is totally bogus. They basically confused an increase in maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft with an increase in the actual weight of the aircraft. The maximum takeoff weight was increased after further static tests of the airframe. I need not remind you that an increase in maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) and thus payload is a good thing. Not a bad thing. The journalists at Kommersant are complete retards.

Another bogus claim Kommersant made was that the MC-21 does not meet the required max speed parameter. But the thing is they conflate the maximum allowed speed parameter for the prototypes acting under flight law restraints with what the aircraft can actually do. And will achieve once testing is over.

All reports we have on the Russian carbon composites claim similar weight for same specifications. The Russians have worse quality fibers (used to be imported from Japan), but stronger adhesive (used to be imported from the US) than the former imports. The resulting composite material (used to be imported from Europe) meets the required strength and weight parameters.

This is the company which makes the carbon fibers and composites:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

btw, your entire argument is just a silly argument. No airlines base their purchase decisions on what airliner is "more advanced". Otherwise, 737s would have stopped getting orders years ago. They do it based on total operating costs for the segments that an airline will operate.

SSJ was the absolute worst in this. It killed Interjet because the maintenance costs were so astronomically high.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
@tphuang you seem to be addressing prior posts of mine instead of that specific one you quoted.

Good counters to your argument are how the Airbus A220 is fully booked out. How airlines pushed Airbus into making the composite A350. The lackluster sales of the conventional Airbus A330 after the introduction of the composite Boeing 787.

The modernity of the design has a direct impact on operational costs.

In the case of SSJ the Russians simply could not get foreign maintenance working properly. While there was an issue with the French designed combustors in the SaM-146 engine other aircraft also had engine issues. And this is papered over with support and maintenance. As for Interjet what really did them in was COVID-19.
 
Last edited:

sahureka

Junior Member
Registered Member
And if I remember correctly, the French did not spend much on research to overcome the problems that had emerged with their part of the SaM-146 engine, this content probably for commercial reasons ($-€) since that turbofan is/was installed only on SSJ-100
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
@tphuang you seem to be addressing prior posts of mine instead of that specific one you quoted.

Good counters to your argument are how the Airbus A220 is fully booked out. How airlines pushed Airbus into making the composite A350. The lackluster sales of the conventional Airbus A330 after the introduction of the composite Boeing 787.

The modernity of the design has a direct impact on operational costs.

In the case of SSJ the Russians simply could not get foreign maintenance working properly. While there was an issue with the French designed combustors in the SaM-146 engine other aircraft also had engine issues. And this is papered over with support and maintenance. As for Interjet what really did them in was COVID-19.
the modernity of design has impact on operational cost if it leads to lighter aircraft. But there are many other factors that affect the operational cost of moder airlines. A220 is fully booked out, because it has the best economics of its size. Did you know that Airbus is still losing money on A220 it is selling? And it has to do that because if it's selling it at the same margin it gets on A320NEO, then it's economics would be inferior.

so sales cost, maintenance cost, availability, crew cost and fuel cost all matter. Airlines calculate what the overall cost is and make their purchase decisions accordingly.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
It is common for new aircraft to be sold below cost to capture market share. As production ramps up the per unit costs decrease.
Boeing had the same issue with the 787 Dreamliner.
 

ReneDad

New Member
That increase in MC-21 weight tidbit comes from a bullshit report by Kommersant. You should not put any credence to it. Kommersant has always had a liberal slant. So of course any state run program is supposed to be a basket case.
People in the actual industry already said that the Kommersant article is totally bogus. They basically confused an increase in maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft with an increase in the actual weight of the aircraft. The maximum takeoff weight was increased after further static tests of the airframe. I need not remind you that an increase in maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) and thus payload is a good thing. Not a bad thing. The journalists at Kommersant are complete retards.

Another bogus claim Kommersant made was that the MC-21 does not meet the required max speed parameter. But the thing is they conflate the maximum allowed speed parameter for the prototypes acting under flight law restraints with what the aircraft can actually do. And will achieve once testing is over.

All reports we have on the Russian carbon composites claim similar weight for same specifications. The Russians have worse quality fibers (used to be imported from Japan), but stronger adhesive (used to be imported from the US) than the former imports. The resulting composite material (used to be imported from Europe) meets the required strength and weight parameters.

This is the company which makes the carbon fibers and composites:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Self-sufficient MC21-310 vs original MC21-300 with Western components:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Max. seats (1 class): 211 vs 211 (same)
MTOW: 85,000 kg vs 79,250 kg (5.75t increase)
MLW: 73,500 kg vs 69,100 kg (4.4t increase)
Max. commercial load: 21,300 kg vs 22,600 kg (1.3t decrease)
2-class range: 5100 km vs 6,000 km (900km decrease)
usage of composite material: 30% vs 40-45% (10-15% decrease)

Though I can't find information of OEW of MC21-300/310, but the increase of MLW and the decrease of max commercial load explains everything: 4.4t+1.3t=5.7t=the increase of MTOW=the increment of OEW

If OEW wasn't increased, why would Yakovlev need to increase MLW meanwhile decrease max commercial load and range?

Having a Russian composite material manufacturer doesn't mean its products are on par with the original western suppliers. I'm also wondering in the remaining 30% composite material, how many of them are made in Russia and how many are supplied by Chinese carbon fiber manufacturers.....
 
Top