15 ms·
Chinese airline completes maiden passenger flight with domestically built plane
- sho 6y agoI don't get why this is news.. the ARJ21 has been flying commercially in China since 2016. So another airline bought some and started flying it... and? Anyway, China still can't make the complex parts, like engines, which I believe it sources from Russia.
- ma2rten 6y agoIf I understand correctly the news is about their new plane the C919.
- missedthecue 6y agoThey are making their own engines now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Engine_Corporation_of_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Engine_Corporation_of_C...
- bluedino 6y agoCopies of 50/60's engines from France and Russia?
- ardy42 6y ago> Copies of 50/60's engines from France and Russia? You have to start somewhere. I mean, it's not like new software developers start off writing state of the art programs. They write a hello world program like everyone else, and build up from there. Same thing with spinning up industrial capacity in a new area. Also, IIRC, a lot of the tricky high tech in jet engine production isn't so much in the engines themselves, but in the manufacturing process of the components and materials. That means reverse engineering will only get you so far.
- Pasorrijer 6y agoAnd maintenance. The biggest differentiator between American and Russian aircraft is that the American aircraft were better maintained. The Russian aircraft were likely more reliable for their given level of maintenance... but they were very, very poorly maintained.
- varjag 6y agoNo, right until the fall of USSR, Aeroflot fleets were properly maintained. American aviation had technological advantage at any point in history.
- keanebean86 6y agoYeah exactly metallurgy is really hard. There's not really a software equivalence except maybe some magic algorithm could possibly fit but it's a stretch. As a seemingly simple example it was only a few years ago that china got good enough at metals to make good pen tips: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/18/finally-china-manufactures-a-ballpoint-pen-all-by-itself/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/18... Edit: metallurgy
- ardy42 6y ago> Yeah exactly metrology is really hard. I'm a little confused. Do you mean metallurgy?
- dlgeek 6y agoMetrology is the science of measurement. In context, it means machining very, very precise parts with super-tight tolerances.
- keanebean86 6y agoI just used the wrong word. It was a typo and I fixed it.
- 6y ago
- sudosysgen 6y agoTheir latest copies are of the CFM56, which is 70s/80s. The CJ-1000A is a mix of the CFM56 and the CFM LEAP, so if it works it will bring them to 2000s' level of engine tech.
- lstodd 6y agoWell, they still didn't manage to replicate the AL-31 despite massive leaks of documentation _and_ it being a late-70-s design. What makes you think they would fare better with the CFM56 which is of the same vintage? There was much boasting for the last ten years, but nothing actually serviceable.
- dirtyid 6y agoNew batch J10s have switched to indigenous WS-10B, the AL31 replacement, early this year. WS-10s was being used on twin engine J16s and J11 years before that.
- sudosysgen 6y agoThe AL-31 was first put into service in 1981, and of course that isn't the same version that is being built under licence (not stolen - they bought the rights to it). That being said, the WS-10 is thought to now be operational, and has been fitted on operational airplanes successfully for almost a decade. So that fits perfectly with them being at 70s/80s level of tech for established, used engines.
- lstodd 6y ago> and has been fitted on operational airplanes successfully for almost a decade Sort of hard to believe this given the Chinese were buying AL-31FNs by the thousands since early 2010s. As it is, I think they hit the metallurgical problems with the hot part from the get go and are struggling with them ever since. Given that the hot part (final compressor stages, combustion and the turbines) aren't that dissimilar from the cores of commercial turbofans I'm inclined to think it's all hot air as is was for the last 10-20 years. Sure they can assemble some CFM56 derivatives around imported cores and that's it.
- rasz 6y agoSo just like the majority of private US aviation then. Nothing says progress like manufacturing "new" Cessna and Robinson aircrafts in 2020 using unchanged designs from the fifties.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Engine_Corporation_of_China#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Engine_Corporation_of_Chi... The United States Department of Defense believes the AECC is linked to the People's Liberation Army.[5] In November 2020, Donald Trump issued an executive order prohibiting any American company or individual from owning shares in companies that the United States Department of Defense has listed as having links to the People's Liberation Army, which included Aero Engine Corporation of China.[6][7][8] Err... LOL? And the the US MIC isn't? Their TLAs aren't using espionage to outbid competitors? /me giggles...
- whoevercares 6y agoChances are China might still not be able to make complex engine in the next 20 years with focuses on AI and decline of manufacturing. IT/Engineers positions earns 5x more and there are lots more positions than mechanic engineer
- whimsicalism 6y agoChina has over a billion people in rapidly improving material conditions. I suspect they will be able to make a complex engine in 20 years.
- fallingfrog 6y agoIt won’t take them long to develop that capability. So far there hasn’t been anything they can’t do.
- bhahn 6y agoHow competitive and safe are these compared to Boeing and Airbus equivalent planes?
- fny 6y agoTime will tell. The 737 max debacle doesn't inspire blind confidence in the West though.
- 88840-8855 6y agoNobody cares. The C919 can be as reliable as nothing else in the market, people will still prefer flying Western airplanes over the Comac. Shitty bias is shitty.
- dirtyid 6y agoSomewhat relevant is Chinese Civil Aviation Administration was the first to ground Max fleet which spurred everyone else to. There's going to be bad blood for a long time.
- mainstreemm 6y agoIt's like it's 1937 and you're complaining about bias against Volkswagen
- mhh__ 6y agoThe fact that we actually know about it is proof that we can't be blinkered about the differences between the west and elsewhere, surely?
- theflyinghorse 6y agoDidn't Boeing leadership try everything they could to deflect the issue?
- mhh__ 6y ago
- throwawaysea 6y ago> Production of both the ARJ21 and C919 have relied on foreign suppliers for parts to build the braking system, engines and hydraulic pressure components. Chinese manufacturers have been able to make the less essential components, according to industry observers, but they are seen as likely to require more maintenance and incur additional costs. How long before China also challenged the turbine and avionics market? They aren’t there yet but I feel like they have the economic capability to get there.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ardy42 6y ago>> Production of both the ARJ21 and C919 have relied on foreign suppliers for parts to build the braking system, engines and hydraulic pressure components. Chinese manufacturers have been able to make the less essential components, according to industry observers, but they are seen as likely to require more maintenance and incur additional costs. > How long before China also challenged the turbine and avionics market? They aren’t there yet but I feel like they have the economic capability to get there. I don't know, but I think they'll get there sooner rather than later. IMHO, China's "more advanced" economic competitors have established a pattern of self-assuredly resting on their laurels in some area (and focusing too much on ideological purity re: economic theory) until their leading positions have been undermined and they lose.
- baja_blast 6y ago>> focusing too much on ideological purity re: economics I hate how people take Economic theories as some irrefutable fact even though they're all proven wrong in the real world. I mean look at any economic study or forecasting from any of the major firms and the one thing that they're consistent on is being wrong. I swear Economists are just like modern day shamans/seers, filling the role that was once held by court wizards. While modern economists may not cut the heads off chickens or consult the stars they do have bogus "models" and secretive proprietary forecasting tools they use to fool idiots into thinking they have special insights. And this is very dangerous too since Economists tend to be very dogmatic, stubborn and seem to double down even when their theories fail, it's like a religion, and they refuse to ever admit their world view is wrong.
- quattrofan 6y agoI know a lot of parts for many items I use are made in China including the iphone but one thing I do notice is pretty much everything I buy that is entirely Chinese is crap that breaks in short order. I wouldn't go near a Chinese built plane.
- justicezyx 6y agoWhat kind of items you typically buy? How are their prices looks like compared to items manufactured from other places (USA EU etc)? I often heard YouTube comments claim that one got crappy Chinese products because of they paid cheap price. I don't have much experience in buying items directly from China (I bought a drill and impact drive from AliExpress, have been OK); want to learn your experience.
- pbourke 6y agoNearly anything that costs under $100, is not a consumable/personal care item/detergent/etc, and is above the fold on Amazon search results will have been made in China.
- hangonhn 6y ago> I often heard YouTube comments claim that one got crappy Chinese products because of they paid cheap price. I don't have much experience in buying items directly from China (I bought a drill and impact drive from AliExpress, have been OK); want to learn your experience. I think that's the nuance that other people miss. Cheap stuff is cheap for a reason and they break. We have all purchased expensive Chinese stuff that work well but we don't attribute them to China because of the shiny non-Chinese logo on them (i.e. Apple, etc.) Anker is a new generation of Chinese companies that is trying to build a brand and move up market. Their stuff have been superb but aren't bargain bin prices.
- BTCOG 6y agoThis is a constant misunderstanding of supply and products origin. Just because an iPhone is "made" in China does not mean it's a Chinese phone. Apple have rigorous standards of quality control and factory management, they have oversight. A Chinese product, would be something that is designed in China and also made by Chinese production. Those are the Chinesium that have little to no quality control and are Chinese products. iPhones are not Chinese products, they are being built in China to Apple standards. I would agree with you that Anker seem to make nice products of a higher quality.
- Pasorrijer 6y agoThe C919 is very similar to a North American aircraft. It was developed in tandem with Bombardier's C-Series (Now known as the Airbus A220). They leverage supply chain economies etc. Not quite sure where the hate is coming from. The US is consistently eroding their manufacturing capability, and if there's one fact of business it's a void will fill itself...
- lumost 6y agoThere was a general claim from the late 80s to 90s that the invisible hand of the market would eventually move Americans to higher paying fields while allowing low wage international competition in manufacturing. As of 2020 the US has not seen these new jobs materialize outside the upper 5% of wage earners in the economy. The trend also shows that the US is losing the capability to manufacture high-end products such as iphones, planes ( 737-max), and trains. The manufacturing jobs which are returning tend to be making the same things that were made 3 decades ago with both inferior wages and quality to what those workers did previously (see American Factory). While lifting billions of people out of poverty in China and the developed world is a laudable achievement, and the realization of competitive international products was nigh inevitable - the elimination of domestic manufacturing in the US was largely the result of policy choices which enabled businesses to move out of US environmental and labor regulations while still selling into the US market.
- ardy42 6y ago> There was a general claim from the late 80s to 90s that the invisible hand of the market would eventually move Americans to higher paying fields while allowing low wage international competition in manufacturing. Yeah, that was super short sighted. It boggles the mind that anyone could have believed that replacing many of the core productive bits of the economy with fluff like management (and ownership), finance, and hospitality would lead to anything but weakness. It's not like people in other countries are going to do most of the actual productive work and continue to let Americans lord over them indefinitely. Under that plan, America would just seem to climb until everyone else realizes there's no there there anymore, and then it will fall to a 3rd world economy who's main advantage is people there will be desperate enough to work for low wages for the new wealthy countries. Of course, some Americans will experience wealth over their lifetimes as that happens, but they're basically getting fat and happy by eating their family's seed corn.
- underseacables 6y agoHow much was original Chinese engineering, and how much was stolen IP? That’s a question that will hang over any Chinese-made achievement.
- bane 6y agoFor the last hundred years or so, for a country to be militarily powerful it must be able to produce four key vehicles from domestic designs: cars, planes, ships, and launch vehicles. However, it's threatening to focus this capacity on military production, so all countries with powerful militaries also happen to have massive civilian industries that produce those four as well. If you can produce these four vehicle classes you can build tanks, fighters, bombers, transport aircraft, battleships, aircraft carriers, and missiles, and ICBMs. The civilian industries for those four classes build expertise, education programs, finance, and all the other wonderful things that create the environment for high-class military production programs. If you don't have a large domestic capacity for those four classes of vehicles, the military struggles and this sets the foreign policy posture for a country -- as the military is one of the tools of diplomacy. It's useful to look at a counter example, Brazil -- long wanting to be a major regional power. But it has only the most minimal domestic auto, plane, ship and space industries and most of its heavy military equipment is imported. This means that if Brazil were to ever get in a protracted war with...well anybody, it can only last as long as it has inventory. Contrast this with a NATO power, who has factories to endlessly churn out tanks, planes, ships, and missiles. And has the domestic capacity to scale up by simply taking over existing domestic infrastructure and turning a factory that makes axles for trucks into one that makes barrels for tanks. These countries also have the domestic intellectual capacity to design improvements, new generations, and seek efficiencies in later generations. They can often source most of the materials to build the materiel themselves, and can, factorio-like, crank out vehicles of all classes faster than domestic training programs can push recruits through a cursory training pipeline to drive them. These countries will eventually win most wars against countries that do not have this industrial capacity because they can treat their equipment as expendable. Whereas Brazil can't engage in actions that deplete its inventory. The Chinese government understands this, and has all of the foundational heavy industries in place to build a war factorio, but not yet the expertise. It has raw materials, smelters, metallurgy, chemists, on up the value chain. But it still struggles quality at volume needed to build domestic engines, avionics, sonar, etc. It has a large and capable electronics industry, but is behind state-of-the-art in semiconductors (but catching up). It has a fully capable and high-end software industry, including state-of-the-art work in AI/ML. This airframe, even if there's still foreign sources bits and pieces in it, is a demonstration, a feeling-out, of native domestic production capacity and understanding where it lacks capacity. I have no doubt those areas will become major national pushes (or already are) over the next 5-10 years enabling China to achieve a NATO-like capacity and no longer be a Brazil-like.
- throwaway4good 6y agoCOMAC was one of the targets of Trump's latest China sanctions: https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3111666/donald-trumps-mooted-china-sanctions-throw-spanner-works-c919 https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3111666/d...
- bassman9000 6y agoWhich makes sense: if it would speed up China's production of, let's say, military planes used in harassing or plain invading neighbors like Taiwan, it's in the US best interests not to make it any easier. Maybe not for this model, but the expertise will surely be applied to military complex: it's not the first time the CCP "rotates" key personnel.
- nomoreusernames 6y agoare they good with hybrid alloys? from my understanding the whole reason the US is top dog here is because they know how to do this well.
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoFor domestic use, China-built aircraft will likely be quite successful. They have competent research and engineering resources, as well as an enormous market. A serious concern in the West will be how much the government pushes domestic built aircraft as an export product. Chinese industry and consumers can't push back on government initiatives and goals as easily as they can in the west, and corners may be cut to achieve mileposts set by powerful bureaucrats.
- vsskanth 6y agoI hope USA leadership realizes manufacturing and supply chain independence outside military needs is as important as food and energy independence. If you don't make stuff, you eventually lose the ecosystem and knowledge. Can't simply coast on the dollar forever.
- pageandrew 6y agoI think that was made obvious in the early days of the pandemic when we realized we depended on China for basic PPE equipment, and I hope that lesson is not forgotten. I'm not too worried about that in the aviation sphere though. The US & Europe are very dominant in that space, with Boeing & Airbus owning a combined 91% of the global market share in airliners.
- vsskanth 6y ago>Boeing & Airbus owning a combined 91% of the global market share in airliners I would be careful here since this is true today, and maybe for a decade or two, but not for long. China seems to be laser focused on improving their domestic capabilities and moving up the value chain. They already have Africa in their hands as a major export market.
- bobthepanda 6y agoAirplanes are a notoriously hard industry though. Particularly making the high-tech, fuel efficient ones that are the things airlines actually want, at a unit cost that is not very expensive. Airbus A350 program cost was €11 billion. Boeing 787 Dreamliner was $32 billion. Bombardier threw in the towel this year and Embraer almost sold to Boeing. Russia has tried to build an airliner for export and failed. So has Japan. You can throw a lot of money at the problem and still never come out on top. And even for the big two times are tough; the 787 program needs 1300-2000 planes to sell to break even. Depending on how you do the accounting Airbus A380 never broke even. Which leads to the other problem; product market fit. Airlines are notoriously fickle and it's hard to figure out market fit, particularly if a requesting airline changes its mind after reviewing their strategy or the aircraft's characteristics once in production. McDonnell Douglass had to merge with Boeing because the MD-11 was not performing as expected and then nobody wanted to buy it. Lockheed exited the civil aviation business because it nearly bankrupted them after they couldn't build a plane to the promised spec. Convair stopped making entire planes after the failure of their 880 and 990 because it turns out "slightly faster but smaller" wasn't a real market niche. Everyone got cold feet around Concorde and the various SSTs. And even Airbus almost folded; its first aircraft did not sell anything between December 1975 and May 1977.
- BTCOG 6y ago"Stolen Western IP counterfeit plane actually flies"
- supernova87a 6y agoAre the Comac planes much more efficient than Boeing/Airbus of the same size/capacity? Are they much cheaper? What's the appeal for a non-China airline to bet on these?
- freebee56 6y agoI am sad to read about how many people here underestimate china. What other country has lifted a BILLION people out of poverty in 30 years? What other country built the worlds biggest high speed rail network in 15 years? What other country is both the biggest producer of steel and iphones? I say this as someone who has a great admiration for western values and lifestyle. A western level university system or free press will probably not be coming there anytime soon. When it comes to building new things china is #1 by far.