5 ms·

The A220 is a certificated airliner. Neither China or Japan has done that.

mannykannot 6y ago
And don't forget the Avro Jetliner. Interestingly, in terms of missed opportunities, this may well have been bigger than the Arrow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_C102_Jetliner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_C102_Jetliner
- andromeduck 6y ago
  Wow and they cancelled that for the arrow!? Yikes.
  - goodcanadian 6y ago
    No, they cancelled that to focus on the Canuck as per the article.
bclemens 6y ago
False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMC_YS-11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMC_YS-11
- goldenkey 6y ago
  That's a turboprop...Aren't those much less safe than jet engines?
  - goodcanadian 6y ago
    No. My understanding is that they are generally even safer. The public doesn't seem to like them as much, though.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    A turboprop is a jet engine. The propeller moves a large mass of air, increasing efficiency ... like the current turbo fan engines! lol. Pax hate turboprops because of the noise and a misconception that they're not jet engines. There's no inherent safety difference, except that there used to be regional airlines flying with inexperienced pilots like cough Colgan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407
    - falcolas 6y ago
      There’s more moving parts, since each prop has to rotate on its own axis in addition to rotating in line with the aircraft. Jets are stupidly simple, but turboprops are more complex due to these requirements of the props. Turboprops also can’t go as high or fast as jets, because they need a certain amount of air density to operate. They can provide fine-controlled reverse thrust, so they have that going for them. And they’re less complicated (and lighter) than a traditional piston engine, making them a win over normal engines in mid-sized aircraft. EDIT: "Jets" in the above is a poor reference to turbofans, as pointed out by replies. Thanks for the clarification. A Turbofan still has a turbine being powered by a jet engine, similar to a turboprop, but it does not have the complexity associated with being able to change the pitch of the props.
      - vvillena 6y ago
        Is there any modern airliner plane that still uses jets? IIRC all modern passenger plane engines are turbofan engines. Turboprops win at slower speed, while turbofans excel in the fast-but-still-subsonic range.
        catalogia 6y ago
        There aren't any modern planes still using turbojets. I think the Concorde might have been the last (ceased operation in 2003.) Combat jets often have very low-bypass ratio turbofan engines though. A true turbojet has a 0 bypass-ratio; a lot of turbofan fighter jets have bypass-ratios under 1, while the engines on a 787 have a bypass-ratio of 10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_ratio#Engine_bypass_ratios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_ratio#Engine_bypass_rat...
  - kitteh 6y ago
    Turboprop/turbine engines are quite reliable. Will gladly put my trust in a single engine Pratt and Whitney (Canada) PT6. Piston on the other hand.
adventured 6y ago
It's a fair point and simultaneously does a disservice to what China is very obviously about to accomplish with the C919. There is every reason to anticipate China taking a big share of that industry away from Boeing and Airbus. They only need to buy their own supply (which they will) to do that. Further, Japan is also very obviously about to successfully unleash the Mitsubishi SpaceJet. It's like people that were still pointing out up to the last moments in May that the US had no human space launch capability, trying to wring that last bit of satisfaction from the context.
- wazoox 6y ago
  Here how I've been told the story of the C919 by people working at Airbus. Airbus wanted to sell planes to China. China said OK, but you must build a factory in Tianjin and assemble the planes there, with Chinese workers and engineers. So Airbus did that. They then built the factory for the C919 in Shanghai, and there went most of the people who previously worked at the Airbus factory. :)
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > about to accomplish with the C919. not certified, a decade late > about to successfully unleash the Mitsubishi SpaceJet. wasn't that cancelled last week? https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/mitsubishi-pulls-back-spacejet-program/ https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/mitsubishi-pulls-back-sp...

And don't forget the Avro Jetliner. Interestingly, in terms of missed opportunities, this may well have been bigger than the Arrow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_C102_Jetliner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_C102_Jetliner

andromeduck 6y ago
Wow and they cancelled that for the arrow!? Yikes.
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  No, they cancelled that to focus on the Canuck as per the article.

bclemens 6y ago

False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMC_YS-11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMC_YS-11

goldenkey 6y ago
That's a turboprop...Aren't those much less safe than jet engines?
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  No. My understanding is that they are generally even safer. The public doesn't seem to like them as much, though.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  A turboprop is a jet engine. The propeller moves a large mass of air, increasing efficiency ... like the current turbo fan engines! lol. Pax hate turboprops because of the noise and a misconception that they're not jet engines. There's no inherent safety difference, except that there used to be regional airlines flying with inexperienced pilots like cough Colgan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407
  - falcolas 6y ago
    There’s more moving parts, since each prop has to rotate on its own axis in addition to rotating in line with the aircraft. Jets are stupidly simple, but turboprops are more complex due to these requirements of the props. Turboprops also can’t go as high or fast as jets, because they need a certain amount of air density to operate. They can provide fine-controlled reverse thrust, so they have that going for them. And they’re less complicated (and lighter) than a traditional piston engine, making them a win over normal engines in mid-sized aircraft. EDIT: "Jets" in the above is a poor reference to turbofans, as pointed out by replies. Thanks for the clarification. A Turbofan still has a turbine being powered by a jet engine, similar to a turboprop, but it does not have the complexity associated with being able to change the pitch of the props.
    - vvillena 6y ago
      Is there any modern airliner plane that still uses jets? IIRC all modern passenger plane engines are turbofan engines. Turboprops win at slower speed, while turbofans excel in the fast-but-still-subsonic range.
      - catalogia 6y ago
        There aren't any modern planes still using turbojets. I think the Concorde might have been the last (ceased operation in 2003.) Combat jets often have very low-bypass ratio turbofan engines though. A true turbojet has a 0 bypass-ratio; a lot of turbofan fighter jets have bypass-ratios under 1, while the engines on a 787 have a bypass-ratio of 10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_ratio#Engine_bypass_ratios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_ratio#Engine_bypass_rat...
- kitteh 6y ago
  Turboprop/turbine engines are quite reliable. Will gladly put my trust in a single engine Pratt and Whitney (Canada) PT6. Piston on the other hand.

adventured 6y ago

It's a fair point and simultaneously does a disservice to what China is very obviously about to accomplish with the C919. There is every reason to anticipate China taking a big share of that industry away from Boeing and Airbus. They only need to buy their own supply (which they will) to do that. Further, Japan is also very obviously about to successfully unleash the Mitsubishi SpaceJet. It's like people that were still pointing out up to the last moments in May that the US had no human space launch capability, trying to wring that last bit of satisfaction from the context.

wazoox 6y ago
Here how I've been told the story of the C919 by people working at Airbus. Airbus wanted to sell planes to China. China said OK, but you must build a factory in Tianjin and assemble the planes there, with Chinese workers and engineers. So Airbus did that. They then built the factory for the C919 in Shanghai, and there went most of the people who previously worked at the Airbus factory. :)
redis_mlc 6y ago
> about to accomplish with the C919. not certified, a decade late > about to successfully unleash the Mitsubishi SpaceJet. wasn't that cancelled last week? https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/mitsubishi-pulls-back-spacejet-program/ https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/mitsubishi-pulls-back-sp...