Comac 919

Launched!

6 airlines have ordered 919. These are Air China, China Southern, China Eastern, Hainan, CLC ja GECAS. 50 orders and 50 options between the six. First flight in 2014, EIS in 2016:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/16/349735/zhuhai-10-comac-announces-launch-c919-order-for-up-to-100-jets.html

Zhuhai airshow

Sorry for thread neck romancy, but the news about 919 are infrequent these years. 919 mockup shall be seen at Zhuhai Airshow:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/05/349329/china-special-c919-update.html

So, how long until we see a chinese copy of the LEAP engines?

Leap X1C specifications

See:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/03/08/339093/cfm-serving-no-leap-before-its-time.html

190 cm fan diametre, 134 kN thrust.

30% seems a bit steep to me unless they have developed a secret new engine or technique. 3% might be a more realistic figure.

Hard to say how much. New engines from CFM and PW claim 10-15% increase in efficiency. Extensive use of composites will reduce weight and henceforth save fuel.

It’s may also be a double gain if the carbon credit system is implemented world wide. Cutting emission is beneficial to any transportation sector.

You make it sound like A and B took a quick glance at the idea and dismissed it.
In actual fact, they’ve been studying it for years and neither A or B have been able to coax more than a projected 10% in savings on a new design versus what they already have. Not enough to warrant a completely new aircraft model.

I guess, when you make something as good as the A320 and 737, it’s hard to improve on it. Both have their pros and cons and sell in similar numbers for similar prices and do the same job as each other. As engineers say: “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”.

I very much doubt this chinese plane will be 30% more efficient overall than the A320 or 737. I think that is just marketing hype.

Airbus has a lot of reasons for not wanting to pour major resources redesigning the A320. The main one being not wanting to mess with their cash cow and of course the lack of competition helps. Then again their money is all tied up with the shiny new wide body jets. neither Boeing or airbus has the money to come up with a new design. The irony is Boeing used the same argument you used when Airbus first came out. History may repeat itself yet again.

I very much doubt this chinese plane will be 30% more efficient overall than the A320 or 737. I think that is just marketing hype.

30% seems a bit steep to me unless they have developed a secret new engine or technique. 3% might be a more realistic figure.

Which airliner have they decided to copy this time ?

I take your point but in this day of generic/CAD designs, how many variations on an airframe designed for a specific purpose can you have?

Why not? Carriers have always been arguing for a 30% increase in fuel savings but A&B have resisted. Both A320 is three decade old while the 737 is half a century out of date even if mated with a new wing. …….

You make it sound like A and B took a quick glance at the idea and dismissed it.
In actual fact, they’ve been studying it for years and neither A or B have been able to coax more than a projected 10% in savings on a new design versus what they already have. Not enough to warrant a completely new aircraft model.

I guess, when you make something as good as the A320 and 737, it’s hard to improve on it. Both have their pros and cons and sell in similar numbers for similar prices and do the same job as each other. As engineers say: “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”.

I very much doubt this chinese plane will be 30% more efficient overall than the A320 or 737. I think that is just marketing hype.

Why not? Carriers have always been arguing for a 30% increase in fuel savings but A&B have resisted. Both A320 is three decade old while the 737 is half a century out of date even if mated with a new wing.

The C919 with more aerodynamic body, a new engine could very well give a considerable boost in fuel saving and lower carbon foot print. Anyways, 80% of parts are sourced. Honeywell is providing the flight controls and avionics, Goodyear the landing gears, CMF the engine etc. I don’t see how this can be described as cheap technology.

If the plane is to fly in US then it well certainly have to pass all FAA regulations. Safety will most likely be comparable to what’s on the market.

AVIC I is already assembling A320s. Do you have any problem flying with a Chinese assembled A320?

Btw FAA is anticipating Chinese entry into the US market. It even opened a office in Shanghai.

Sounds good! True that some of the parts for the 787 are made in China.

I deleted it, I was just bored, the forum hadn’t moved for an hour. Looks like a nice plane, will it elbow others out of the market? Chinese technology is usually cheaper, but what about the quality?

Why not? Carriers have always been arguing for a 30% increase in fuel savings but A&B have resisted. Both A320 is three decade old while the 737 is half a century out of date even if mated with a new wing.

The C919 with more aerodynamic body, a new engine could very well give a considerable boost in fuel saving and lower carbon foot print. Anyways, 80% of parts are sourced. Honeywell is providing the flight controls and avionics, Goodyear the landing gears, CMF the engine etc. I don’t see how this can be described as cheap technology.

If the plane is to fly in US then it well certainly have to pass all FAA regulations. Safety will most likely be comparable to what’s on the market.

AVIC I is already assembling A320s. Do you have any problem flying with a Chinese assembled A320?

Btw FAA is anticipating Chinese entry into the US market. It even opened a office in Shanghai.

that was a really relevant post, thanks….

After ARJ21 deal, leap-x didn’t surprise me

I deleted it, I was just bored, the forum hadn’t moved for an hour. Looks like a nice plane, will it elbow others out of the market? Chinese technology is usually cheaper, but what about the quality?

that was a really relevant post, thanks….

After ARJ21 deal, leap-x didn’t surprise me

Engines found!

See:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/21/336414/cfm-international-to-provide-engines-for-comacs-c919.html

Comac chose CFM Leap-X for the import engines of 919, so Leap-X shall be built.

Seems as if the first front section of the C 919 has been finished !???

http://www.avicone.com/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=9565

Deino

Here are some recent pictures:

http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/slide_8_458_1157.html

Deino

Very true

No, as the 767 has a very noticable “step” in its nose where the windshield meets the radome.

787? You’ve got to be kidding. Might as well say 767 or any other plane.

I guess there are only so many ways you can make a twin-engined, low-winged, conventional tail aircraft look…

I’m specifically talking about the nose section, with its smooth design with no “protruding” nose” and the angles of the curves.
The C jet and this Comac thing look like carbon copies, not just similar.

Having said that… I believe the comet was the first to feature such a smooth nose.