Thoughts on Comac's C919? Would you fly on a made in China plane?
>>1991559I'd rather fly in a C919 than a 737 Max
I'd rather let someone else do the beta testing.
Rather chink shit than Boeing desu
An oligopoly of the world market with only two companies will lead to a corrupt structure like Boeing, but only when another option is added and there are three, will the principle of competition among companies be born.
>>1991559>5 aircraft in service No thanks
>>1991559>Would you fly on a made in China plane?No because to get anywhere that flies them I'd have to take a Boeing and die immediately after takeoff
>>1991636I read that individual component failure and assembly fault problems are so pervasive, even the Chinese aviation authority won't allow a C919 to be delivered without individually going through a battery of tests that is almost as extensive as type certification test. The CCP knows that if any C919 has an accident, it will be a deep reputational hole to dig out of, and China may not be able to sell a single commercial airliner to a non-third world country for many decades to come.
>>1991561fpbp
>>1991559TRULY MOST IMPLESSIVE!CHYNA NUMBA WAN!
>>1991559Seems like a copy of the A320ceo. I'd never fly on one, not only because it's a chink deathtrap but because it isn't certified by any country that matters.
engines not even built by them, come back when they can actually make one from scratch instead of just putting prefabricated parts together
>>1992228You could say that about ANY aircraft manufacturer. The Chink 320 uses the LEAP engine, which is a good powerplant by all standards and I probably wouldn’t be upset at the idea of flying in one. That said, no interest in going to the PRC unless they make an autonomous enclave for American huwhites because mainland China under the CCP is Hellish and you’re expected to get by without any labor rights.
ITT: chink shills
>>1991636Ah yes, because China is famously known for not being able to scale up mass production
>>1993046Scaling up production of rubber dogshit and commercial aircraft are two different things my guy
>>1993051You might want to check out who is the largest commercial shipbuilder and the other only nation that has managed to mass produce 5th gen fighters
>>1993052>fifth gen fightersChina needs starts mass producing meds
>>1993061250 J-20s don't lie. China military aviation sector has outpaced it's civilian aviation for years now. It's proof that there's enough expertise and supply chain network in the country to ramp up it's civilian aircraft production
>>1993062>didn't start development until after the first flight of American gen5s>first flight after the F22 production run ended>built entirely of stolen American technologyI'd be embarrassed bragging about the J-20. The only thing it got right is using canards and thrust vectoring together. Congrats on mass producing mediocrity I guess
>>1993065Why you moving goalposts? I never said that the J-20 was better then the F-22 or F-35, or that it wasn't copied in some way. It's still a 5th gen fighter that is being mass produced, something that no other country other then America can do. It's just an example of how developed China's military aviation sector is and how their civilian aviation sector can develop in the same way. The point is, once they get the tech, they can mass produce it. As compared a country like Russia, that has good tech that they can produce at 1 unit a year. The J-20 is still China's first attempt at a stealth aircraft. Considering that 20 years ago, they were just copying/licensing soviet aircraft, their first attempt worked out pretty well. Going from a Indian tier military that was 100% reliance on foreign technology to the 2nd strongest air force in the world in 20 years is mediocre now?
>>1993052Building ships and planes are different. They have very little experience in designing or building original airframes (not licensed from the USSR) in the commercial sector, they have no domestically-produced commercial jet engines, and no competitive domestically-produced avionics. Yeah they may have made significant progress in the last 40 years in the aviation sector but I would argue very little innovation considering much of the technical advancement is thanks to licensed manufacturing of Russian engines and airframes and copying western manufacturers. Also don’t assume that military advancement will somehow magically transfer to the commercial aviation sector; the two are not the same.
>>1993067Zhang whining about moving goalposts then posts the biggest cope, switches sports, and breaks down into tears.China numa wan!!!!!!!
>>1993067forgot to mention, China is not the second strongest air force in the world, that title goes to the US Navy rumao
>>1993077Building ships like modern LNG carriers is harder then you think and also has some insane safely requirements. An LNG carrier basically has the energy of a decent sized nuke in it's hull. It's telling that only China and SK have the technology to mass produce them at scale. >but I would argue very little innovation considering much of the technical advancement is thanks to licensed manufacturing of Russian engines and airframes and copying western manufacturersThey don't need innovation for now. They just need a decent plane to sanction proof their aviation industry and maybe make some inroads into SEA and Africa. Maybe in 20 years they will come up with something cutting edge. And they have clearly surpassed the Russians, even in engines. >Also don’t assume that military advancement will somehow magically transfer to the commercial aviation sector; the two are not the same.Stuff like the material science needed to build the engines, trained engineers, wind tunnels, CAD software etc etc will all help. Hell, it's rumored that their civilian aircraft engines are going to be modified version of military engines like the WS-20 It's no secret that America's military and civilian sector are very intertwined and support each other.
>>1993082At this point, that's debatable.China as a whole has more aircraft and a large portion of the Navy's aircraft are transports. Of course that's comparing the entirely of China to just the united state's navy so that hardly a win for China.
>>1993085so what you're saying is Chinese are incompetent and need computers to do the design work for them?
>>1993091China's airforce is rivaled by the aircraft of American boat boys. Embarrassing
>>1993092CAD software is the industry standard for more then a decade now. I have no idea what you're talking about>>1993093Hey number 2 is still a pretty good spot. Better then the rest of the world. 20 years ago China wasn't in the top 10, so that's progress
>>1993096China wasn't even remotely competitive until computers made their planes instead of the Soviets or God forbid their own nationals.>>1993096the gap from #1 to #2 is comically large. I genuinely want to go to war with China for the sole purpose of the embarrassment it would bring to the biggest stain on humanity. They won't touch Taiwan because they know they can't hold their own against the US. You kiddos need to sit down and get back to work making cheap plastic doodads because labor is all your country is good for.
>>1993085I'm not saying they can't build ships man, I don't know why you keep referring to shipbuilding as an analogue for airplane manufacturing. Completely different animals. >they don't need innovationThey most certainly do need innovation because there is no reason to invest in a domestically-produced Chinese airliner if airlines can purchase or lease western jets at a lower cost. With western jets the infrastructure already exists, and the airline will already be contracting with foreign companies for the engines anyways. If they want to break into the civil aviation market without daddy Xi forcing domestic airlines to purchase/lease domestic airframes they are gonna have to come up with something that offers a competitive advantage. They may be communist on paper but they are capitalists in practice. >military-civilian advancement is the sameNo. For civilian aviation the goal is to maximize profit margin by maximizing aircraft efficiency, safety, system integrity and redundancy, and get those MX intervals as wide as can be. The airline must operate in the black if it is to survive long-term. The more efficient the design the easier it is to meet that profitable threshold. The military cares only about performance, which can come at a significant operating costs (far in advance of the operating margin an airline has to work with). Designing a fighter and an airliner are two way different beasts. Pro-tip: the material sciences and aerodynamic principles are well known and established by this point. It is about designing the airframe and engines to suit the goals of the operator: minimum unit and operating costs with long service intervals and operational reliability. The difference between the military and civilian sector is that in the latter all 3 are required.
>>1993108>I don't know why you keep referring to shipbuilding as an analogue for airplane manufacturing.Safety for one. LNG carriers can wipe out a small city if they go boom, their engineering and safety standards are comparable to that of passenger aircraft for that reason. >because there is no reason to invest in a domestically-produced Chinese airliner if airlines can purchase or lease western jets at a lower costYou're saying that in the middle of a cold/trade war between America and China. China will force their airlines to do so just due to the sanction risk. They have learnt their lessons from Huawei and the semiconductor sanctions. If you purely go by market forces, China wouldn't even be trying to build their own aircraft, they would just buy Airbus/Boeing like the rest of the planet. >The difference between the military and civilian sector is that in the latter all 3 are required.The military sector will provide the initial engineering expertise and support to start the ball rolling. It's much harder to start from scratch after alll. Once they have all critical competents like the engines, they will innovate after they have a stable product to dodge sanctions. >The military cares only about performance, which can come at a significant operating costs (far in advance of the operating margin an airline has to work with).And there's clearly some overlap in the engineering and software present. Why would Boeing be a massive military contractor? >Pro-tip: the material sciences and aerodynamic principles are well known and established by this point.Not for new designs like blended wing bodies, next gen engine materials like ceramic composites, even more use of composite materials in the airframe, open prop engines etc etc.
>>1993091>large portion are transportstransport aircraft are vastly more powerful than combat aircraft. logistics win wars, and in terms of logistics the USAF has four times as many C-17's as the rest of the world combined, and vastly C-17's more than any countries fleet of woefully inferior stratetigc airlifters, and a fleet of C-130H's and C-130J's that dwarf any rival. the USAF has more ski equipped boutique C-130's than most countires have tactical airlifters overall.really the whole>the two most powerful air forces in the world are the USAF and the USNquip hardly captures the disparity in power projection between the US and the rest of the world.
>>1993145That amount of transport aircraft are only necessary if you're fighting wars all over the globe. If you're comparing fighting power in a vacuum by teleporting in all aircraft into a neutral battlefield and having them duke it out, they're aren't so much of an factor. Or if the US navy has to fight China right in it's backyard where China doesn't have to worry about logistics nearly as much.
>>1993061They are also the biggest producer of medicine.
>>1993102You have the freedom to travel. Many do not, maybe appreciate what you have hmm?
The mutt glowies are really seething hard at China, Blinkey boy's visit was that disastrous
>>1991559did you know japan tried to build their own too but failed?why china can build commercial jet but japanese can't?look up mitsubishi spacejet>development suspended>As flight testing took longer than expected, the scheduled entry into service was further pushed back until development was first paused amid the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on aviation[2] and subsequently suspended indefinitely.[3]oh no no no
>>1994374Yeah and? The financial situations for Mitsubishi and Comac are wildly different. Mitsubishi needed their project to have a chance at making profit at some point to make sense at continuing. The Comac project is part of prestige and preparedness for the Chinese state. There's no doubt that Mitsubishi could have taken their project to the end and produced a good aircraft. But not while keeping it profitable. I also have no doubt that Comac can produce a working aircraft. This first one certainly won't be turning a profit for them. But it's both a prestige project and preparedness/anti-sanction safeguard for the future. All the tech needed is relatively simple for it, they just need to get the manufacturing together. And while they produce a lot of chink shit the Chinese can also manufacture pretty much anything they want in high quality.
I'll fly on anything if it's not boeing
>>1994372>>1994374>>1994392>sinoids need shill threads to convince people who hate Boeing to switch from flying Boeing's death traps to their top of the line domesticsNanshou si le!!!!!!
>>1994409Sorry I don't speak anime
The CCP shill replied almost instantly to my post that happened 3hrs after the last bump hahahaha.You can try to be a little less obvious Zhang, it would help your cause.Your aircraft will only be sold to third world countries, at a loss, in USD. The world knows what to expect from China and an airplane built to those expectations will never be anything but a total commercial failure.
>>1994417I'm singaporean, senator
>>1994417Sorry but even my normie not online friends are talking about how to avoid flying Boeing
>>1994374I don't know why you're stuck in the early 2000s but China technology level has clearly surpassed Japan in many many areas. Like the only technological lead Japan has over China is in robotics and in niche areas of the semiconductor making process like photoresist. Also China has a large enough domestic market to fully serve the C919's demand side. Part of the reason why the Spacejet failed was that Japan was having issues with the FAA certification, and there wasn't going to be enough Japanese demand for the jet while they waited for how many years to get approval from the FAA. And most countries would still go with Boeing/Airbus anyway. So the economics didn't make sense
>>1994527Not bothering with US regulations is probably the only reason comac got ahead, really. Look at how many E175-E2s have been sold.
>>1994612Yeah there's really no point in trying to challenge Boeing or Airbus, unless you have some massive advantage in the plane itself or on the servicing side. Literally the only chance COMAC has is that they can sell thousands of planes just via their domestic market
