http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/7084994/Chinas-new-airliner-hits-turbulence
When China set a goal to leap from being a tiny aerospace-industry player to a direct threat to Airbus and Boeing, few scoffed at the idea, given Beijing’s track record of using deep government pockets to push state-owned firms up the ladder.
But as leaders of the global aerospace industry gather in Beijing for an International Air Transport Association meeting that kicks off on Sunday, a closer examination shows that the potential challenge from China might be greatly overblown, and that its aircraft sector is unlikely to pose any credible competition for at least a decade.
To start with, a host of design flaws have delayed approval by the Civil Aviation Administration of China for the country’s first homegrown passenger jet – a 90-seat ARJ21 “regional” plane.
That in turn is likely to set back the country’s bigger ambition, to dent Airbus and Boeing’s global stronghold with a 737-sized airplane of its own.
In interviews with executives from three different technology suppliers working with Commercial Aircraft Corp of China (Comac) to develop passenger jets, Reuters learned that various tests over the past two years have identified flaws in the ARJ21’s wings, wiring and computer systems.
During a stress test in mid-2010, the wings of the ARJ21 broke, or “cracked” in one executive’s description, before the pressure applied reached regulatory norms.
In further examinations conducted last year, the avionics system – the brain of the plane – failed at times to work properly, highlighting what one of the three suppliers executives described as a “system integration problem.” Faults in the wiring were also discovered in those tests, according to the supplier executives.
more at the link…
By: TR1 - 29th May 2013 at 22:56
Comac reduces C919 composite use to speed up progress.
By: chornedsnorkack - 25th May 2013 at 20:39
40% of flight tests still left to do:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/long-delayed-arj21-certification-set-to-slip-again-386301/
By: chornedsnorkack - 6th March 2013 at 18:06
Landing gear change
What are the changes, specifically?
By: chornedsnorkack - 21st November 2012 at 16:55
“Majority” of ground tests completed!
See:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/arj21-completes-majority-of-ground-tests-379282/
What are the remaining “19,5%”, besides fatigue?
By: Snow Monkey - 14th November 2012 at 11:54
well, i’m sure ARJ21 experience will help them make certification for C919 easier,
but the delays in ARJ21 are meaning that they will be missing crucial experience with support requirements for an airliner with modern parts, which is important to airlines who may consider C919. UAC has been cutting it’s teeth on that topic with SuperJet (along with Alenia in their JV), and they will still be partnering with Lufthansa Technik for MS-21 support. i haven’t really read anything about that aspect of C919 program (or ARJ21), but the fact it isn’t being publicized (as opposed to Superjet/MS-21, much less Airbus/Boeing) doesn’t really strike me as confidence inspiring… 😎 but i don’t know if the deal with lufthansa is exclusive, if not comac would probably do the same thing.
By: chornedsnorkack - 14th November 2012 at 10:55
Another delay!
A year or two this time:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airshow-china-arj21-first-delivery-slips-further-378959/
By: Dazza - 24th October 2012 at 16:15
Why are you comparing the ARJ to the A380 for the evacuation?
Why indeed?
90 passengers and 4 crew in 57 seconds compared to 853 passengers plus 20 crew in 78!
Please explain why the comparison…
-Dazza
By: Bmused55 - 24th October 2012 at 10:31
Why are you comparing the ARJ to the A380 for the evacuation?
By: chornedsnorkack - 23rd October 2012 at 16:57
Evacuated!
The 90 passengers and 4 crew fled the plane.
In 57 seconds:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/arj21-passes-emergency-evacuation-test-376827/
A380 needed 79.
By: Amiga500 - 8th July 2012 at 14:45
Let me ask a question I’ve long wondered about….
How does a “regional Jet” by Bombardier, Embraer, or China really differ from a small DC-9/737/318?
This is gonna sound pathetic, but I think its mostly because they are categorised differently in pilot unions. Apparently its a very big thing.
One of the main stumbling blocks to Bombardier going ahead with the CSeries was having it categorised along with the CRJ/ERJ regionals rather than 737/320 family of narrowbodies.
Sounds stupid, I know (well, actually sounds really stupid), but there it is.
In terms of actual engineering – a regional jet will be designed around a higher number of flight cycles (of shorter duration) per day, than say, an A320. It results in slightly different optimisations in design giving the improved economics you mention. I think the CRJ has a slightly lower cruising speed than A320*, so the wing will give marginally better take-off/climb performance.
*regardless of what wiki says, I’ll check a few DBDs on Monday to confirm that.
Edit: Wiki is right. Mmo for 318 is 0.82 – so no speed differential.
By: J Boyle - 7th July 2012 at 23:55
Let me ask a question I’ve long wondered about….
How does a “regional Jet” by Bombardier, Embraer, or China really differ from a small DC-9/737/318?
Yes, they have better economics (by having diferent engines), but are their airframes really any different? Are they made less stout (with an accompaning shorter life) in an attempt to keep weight down?
Are they that much cheaper to buy…would an airline save money by buying a used low time jet vs. a new regional?
By: Amiga500 - 7th July 2012 at 20:28
if the DC-9 worked, why can’t the ARJ-21?
Because the DC-9 entered service in 1965 and was competitive, or better, than its contemporaries.
The ARJ-21 is supposedly significantly inferior in economics to the CRJ-900/-1000 and the ERJ-170/-190…
Never mind the CSeries and the potentially (probably) re-engined E-jets.
By: tenthije - 7th July 2012 at 18:50
if the DC-9 worked, why can’t the ARJ-21?
By that logic we should replace our cars with Austin Westminsters, VW Beetles and Citroen 2CVs.
By: Italy - 7th July 2012 at 18:41
Apparantly MOL was interested in the COMAC C919, but not in the DC-9 ARJ-21.
if the DC-9 worked, why can’t the ARJ-21?
By: tenthije - 1st July 2012 at 22:43
Doesn’t Michael O’Leary want some of these ?
Apparantly MOL was interested in the COMAC C919, but not in the DC-9 ARJ-21.
By: Bmused55 - 1st July 2012 at 22:01
I doubt it. Although, as he has pissed off both Airbus and Boeing, both of whom showed his purchase team the door, he might have to look elsewhere for new metal.
I think however, MOL will eventually accept that the days of him “raping” a manufacturer for planes are over.
By: tommyinyork - 1st July 2012 at 09:56
Doesn’t Michael O’Leary want some of these ?
By: Bmused55 - 29th June 2012 at 21:08
Chinese copies are always inferior :diablo:
By: garryrussell - 29th June 2012 at 14:56
OK…this is new to the country and they have the sort of issues that Boeing and Airbus have had so in the bigger picture it’s no big deal.
It will all get sorted and things will move on.
By: chornedsnorkack - 29th June 2012 at 12:16
Testing water injection
Which tests are done, which are remaining?
Sign In
June 23, 2012 at 9:14 pm