COMAC C929 Widebody Airliner

Tomboy said:

So C929's first prototype would also use CJ-2000 on its maiden flight? That's pretty neat IMO since most people were expecting RR engines to be used initially for testing etc.

Click to expand...

sunnymaxi said:

honestly, Engines are yet to be finalize but during Zhuhai airshow 2022, COMAC display Trent7000 with C929..

but a lot things have changed since then.. and CJ-2000 progress as well. so there is a strong chance we might see C929 with domestic machine.

APU/Landing gear system/cockpit/composite body/composite wings all are locally produced. its done

Click to expand...

Godswill said:

Why China's first wide body aircraft is so big? The fuselage is 5.92 meters wide, about the same width as Airbus A350. Shouldn't it be more logical that China build a smaller wide-body airliner (5.2-5.4m fuselage width for an 8-seat abreast in economy configuration), and then build something bigger? There are other advantages for starting with a smaller wide body aircraft.
1. The current configuration is in direct competition with Boeing 787 and Airbus A350, which are the most popular planes from these two established players. A smaller wide body will target a more niche market where there is much less competition, and will be appealing to more lean route (7000-11,000km distance with not enough traffic to justify 787 or A350). Only competition will be A330neo, which is an old product with small upgrade. Much easier to compete against A330neo than 787+A350.
2. Military application. A 5.2-5.4m wide airliner will be a more suitable platform for AWACS or tanker. 767 (5.1 meters wide) and A330 (5.6 meters wide) are used as a platform for AWACS and tanker, 787 and A350 would be too big. Yes, there are restrictions for Chinese military to use this airliner as a military platform, they cannot use any western component and dosing so would risk Western sanction against the whole program. Chinese military probably would use these airliners as military platforms only after domestic supply for every component is developed. Still, start with a smaller wide body airliner just makes more sense, from both economic and defense perspectives.

Click to expand...

Godswill said:

Why China's first wide body aircraft is so big? The fuselage is 5.92 meters wide, about the same width as Airbus A350. Shouldn't it be more logical that China build a smaller wide-body airliner (5.2-5.4m fuselage width for an 8-seat abreast in economy configuration), and then build something bigger? There are other advantages for starting with a smaller wide body aircraft.
1. The current configuration is in direct competition with Boeing 787 and Airbus A350, which are the most popular planes from these two established players. A smaller wide body will target a more niche market where there is much less competition, and will be appealing to more lean route (7000-11,000km distance with not enough traffic to justify 787 or A350). Only competition will be A330neo, which is an old product with small upgrade. Much easier to compete against A330neo than 787+A350.

Click to expand...

ACuriousPLAFan said:

(Just for note - The 5.92 meter-wide figure is for the fuselage width of the C929, whereas the cabin width is listed as 5.62 meters.)

Quite likely because COMAC anticipates greater carrying capacity demand in the coming years, and that the 3-3-3 (i.e. 9 abreast) sitting configuration in economy class will become the mainstay configuration, hence necessitating a wider fuselage for the C929 compared to the A330neo and 787. Going for the narrower 2-4-2 (8 abreast) means losing out on the bigger chunks of the market pie and making the C929 redundant in the long run.

The A330neo only has a 2-4-2 (8 abreast) economy seating configuration. And while the 787 offers both 2-4-2 (8 abreast) and 3-3-3 (9 abreast) economy seating configurations thanks to its slightly wider fuselage (5.49 meters vs 5.26 meters), the 3-3-3 configuration isn't exactly pleasant and comfortable (Yes, I had several not-that-nice experience of sitting in one for a couple 8-hour-long journeys).

Besides, modern-day commercial airliners that can carry more passengers with only marginal if not negligible fuel consumption increase (i.e. better fuel efficiency) thanks to advancing aviation technology is always better. Moreover, economy class tickets aren't exactly the major earners for airlines (especially budget airlines with high-capacity, long-haul route demands), hence it is always preferable to be able to cramp as many seats in the economy class as possible to increase sales revenue.

(Yes, the last sentence that sounds harsh and borderline immoral, but that's just how things are.)

Furthermore, a niche market can also mean not a lot of potential sales once the original demand gaps have already been filled up (which can happen pretty quickly with a not-so-large market). That's why regional jets don't get a lot of sales besides the established players of Embraer E/E2-Jets and A220, alongside why many regional jet projects (including the infamous Mitsubishi SpaceJet) are dead even before arrival.

As for military applications - The 767s and A330s are older airframes (with their first flights in 1981 and 1992, respectively) that have been in service for decades, hence proven record of service reliability.

Also, military utility shouldn’t dictate commercial design, as commercial airliner manufacturers (Airbus and Boeing) are always exclusively focused on meeting the demands and requirements of commercial (mainly passenger service) operations during their research and development stages. The air forces typically selects certain commercial airliners as platforms for their military applications (tankers, AEW&C, ELINT, ASW etc) when they find them suitable for their needs, not the other way around.

Last-but-not-least, there's the C939 which is in the early stages of development, and is planned to compete against the 777X. That means the C939 is only going to be wider than the C929 (and similar to the 777X), with 3-4-3 (10 abreast) economy seating configurations.

Click to expand...

vincent said:

There are many widebody planes flying domestic routes because the limited number of flights available. I once flew from Shanghai to Guangzhou on a B787. Airlines needs to pack as many passengers into every flight as possible.

Click to expand...

Godswill said:

I'm not saying there is no market for 9-seat abreast wide body airliner. There is but it is kind of crowded. But first, lets set the fuselage and cabin width straight.

Airliner Fuselage Width Cabin Width First Flight
Boeing 767 5.03m 4.72m 1981
Airbus A330 5.64m 5.28m 1992 (A330neo first flight in around 2017)
Boeing 787 5.76m 5.49m 2009
Comac C929 5.92m 5.61m
Airbus A350 5.96m 5.61m 2013

The 8 seat abreast market is not disappearing, Boeing actually plans "New Midsize Airplane"(767 successor, size not definite yet, but should be smaller than 787 for an 7/8 seat abreast economy configuration) to address this market, but the 737MAX debacle, 777X delay and resulting financial struggle is holding them back. And for Airbus, A330 is the 8 seat option, and A350 the 9-seat option.

Airbus/Boeing's timing of new aircraft depends on the time-frame of previous aircraft a lot, so sometimes there is an opening for new player to exploit. Boeing introduced 777 when a lot of old tri-engine jets (DC-10 and L1011) started to be phased out. A350 is positioned as a successor to A340, which started to be decommissioned in early 2010s. Just like 787, with improved fuel economy which enables an exceptional long range for a relatively small aircraft, makes a lot of point-to-point direct route with not that much big traffic possible, is the crucial reason for its success. I believe a smaller C929 (about 5.4m fuselage width) with good range has much bigger market potential than its current configuration. Current 929 should be the next COMAC wide body airliner(C939).
Of course "military utility shouldn’t dictate commercial design, as commercial airliner manufacturers." But it is obvious that some airliners are more suitable for usage as AWACS/tanker platform than others. Boeing does not offer 777 based AWACS/tanker, not because they cannot, but because it doesn't make much sense.

Click to expand...

latenlazy said:

I think you’re missing the actual critical parameters shaping design decisions. Airliners don’t care about cabin width they care about passenger per fuel miles. Differentiation is irrelevant if the point of differentiation is irrelevant to the customer. Airliners are replacing their A330s for A350s for a reason. You compete on the factors that matter to your customer. If you think the C929 should differentiate it needs to differentiate on specific route economics not cabin width. Don’t chase niches that no one cares about.

Click to expand...

Godswill said:

During the covid era, international flight plummeted, freeing up a lot of wide body aircrafts. That's why they are used in a lot of domestic routes. And for some congested airports, wide body airlines are used for short flights, like Japan used to fly 747 in domestic routes. But these are exceptions not the norm. Aircraft manufacturers do not actually target these small markets.

Click to expand...

最新引进的787-9
目前已用于多条航线飞行​