We badly need a third serious player in this segment. However I am sure the other two parties will pull out all tricks to stop the third party to join the party. But I hope that the third party will succeed. All the very best.
China is having almost double the population of America and Europe combined. China will also grow to become a giant in the business world. Just domestic needs alone will do to help the Comac to commercially take off.
@@HungNguyen-bf8qs true but the west will do everything to damage/smear China commercial aviation to maintain their dominance and if all else fails, their government will sanction China commercial aviation.
@@justme6275 China has top geniuses in every field already. No matter how the West tries, all their attempts to smear China will be in vain. All the statistics point at the new world order led by China, not only commercial aviation but in all aspects of business, economics and scientific endeavour.
This is a breakthrough in China. It can fly to the sky, fly reliably, gain public recognition, and ensure safety. The range can be improved in the future. If we don't do it now, China will still not be able to manufacture large aircraft after 10 years. I think This is a great breakthrough
@@kaitoshinichi You learn how to walk before you run. Airbus is an amalgamation of components, including critical ones, produced by various countries around the world. With globalization that's how things are produced with the benefits being lower prices and better products. As time progresses more and more localized technology will be used, but only if there's a price performance advantage.
@@DailyBeatings yet their own media keeps portraying it as all components were own made. Just like their high speed rail. After all these years, only the frame is own made and the critical components are foreign made. Most importantly, even though it creates great nationalism, the citizens actually don't benefit. It's the state owned company that profits.
@@kaitoshinichi Please, I've seen the media coverage and they haven't been portraying the aircraft as 100% indigenous, you just made that up. Unlike in the past with joint-venture production China's trains are now mostly indigenous with a few foreign made components, just like everything else produced in this world. You have globalization with a diversified supply chain. The whole comparative advantage versus absolute advantage theory. You should probable read up on the topic. What are you talking about that citizens don't benefit? Aircraft production creates jobs and any excess profits secured by a SOE goes into the general fund, which means a reduction in generating tax revenue. The investor class doesn't profit, however there's not enough private capital available to take on the duopoly of Airbus and Boeing, so the point is moot. You really don't know what you're talking about, so my suggestion is that you keep quiet before you make a bigger fool of yourself...🤣😂🤣😂
@@kaitoshinichi The west sanction C919 with core components then China won't buy their planes simple is that. It's part of business we buy and sell and they sell and we buy the west can't have both ways, sell their planes and not allow China to buy their engines that's not fair. So worry Xinnie have confidence chinese people like you are very smart just go to Silicon Valley and see for yourself, that''s your answer buddy!
both are beautiful aircrafts - the C919 will be a good work horse for the domestic market and a good contender to break the duopoly of Airbus and boeing. Airbus, being an older manufacturer, would have the advantage of experience and design philosophy to iron out teething issues associated with new planes.
@@MrScientific007 And nobody has the money to buy it based on current very high inflation while the chinese already has its own product. So what is the advantage and benefit for another level but will only be a display item inside the hangar??? 😭😭
I don't actually think airbus on boeing have new designs in the scope atleast nothing that has been announced yet so they'll have at least the 10 years before they get a new plane to market anyways.
@@MrScientific007 I doubt so....as China have a larger market and more scientist and engineers in china. In no time China planes will more advance. Just like 5G and China infrastructure feats....
Great video, thanks for posting. Is pretty hard to Comac 919 set a new sales standard like A 320 has already, almost two decades ago. But the final sticker price is very attractive, fits with the money budgets of many emergent Asia/African/Latin america domestic operators. They seem to be almost exact performance numbers, but the C919 shortest range and passenger/pay load ratios show to be its weak point, but somehow could be equalized by the lowest final price. The most important fact, in the future in case this chinese aircraft get to be certified and operated is the reliabilty and post-sales parts and technical assistance, a must in this ultra competitive industry. Having said all that, the plane it self looks very good, sleek, elegant and clean shape. Good luck to Comac staff and manufacturing team.
The COMAC company leadership itself has many dislikes inside China by the Chinese because of its reluctance to use all of made in China parts but rather using a lot of european parts. The chinese gov has offered the military new engine which twice more powerful than the Leap but the COMAC chairman reject it, he also said rather than using the military engine COMAC is better developing its own engine which is CJ-1000A (an old generation engine and less powerful). In my guessing the reason for COMAC to use a lot of european or american parts is probably COMAC has a target toward european market sales.
I remember President Benson quote "It seems like only yesterday I was strafing so many of your homes. Yet here I am today, begging you not to make such good cars." He was referring to Japanese though. But it's technically the same. Chinese Korean Japanese, all look same for White people
Is not impressive at all...do you know Wright broders? Since then the aircraft in US and EU are developing in order to get to that point..and suddenly China build their own aircraft for 10 - 15 years. Hoho how come! There is a word for that... industrial espionage
Yes, they moved on from the Tienan Square Massacre and took advantage of the global support to grow magnificently. But I still feel sorry for their people still living in such a dictatorship, another Russia of Asia.
China is going to be a serious competitor in hi - tech items sooner or later and commercial aircrafts are no exception. USA led West is to count on it.Moreover, it must keep in mind that just like USA due to its large area and large population it does not have to depend too much on overseas market.
US and NATO only consist of 660 million people while China alone consist of 1.4 billion people and this is more than twice the size of the so called "international community".
The airbus A320 is a relatively ‘old’ aircraft and now it is a good time to introduce the comac 919 as Boeing 737max is still having an image problem. Most important is the direct operating costs of A320 vs C919. The size and the performance are quite comparable between the C919 and the Airbus A320. The C919 is the only ‘new’ midrange aircraft in the market apart from the B737max. Many airlines will have to replace their Airbus fleet and the C919 has a big chance to enter the market. China’s domestic market is big and growing fast which certainly can accommodate the C919 for many years to come. The C919 is an excellent candidate in south East Asia, Africa and Latin America.
737 Max the only 'new' midrange aircraft? Have you forgot A320 neo? Airline which need to replace A320 ceo (The variant used in this video for comparison) will most likely go for A320 neo to save cost on logistic, maintenance, spare part and pilot training.
@@kmanliberty1065 true but the A320 neo is based on the A320 design and it is relatively more expensive than the C919. Aircraft sale is based not on costs only but more on politics. If the EU leans towards the usa’s policy than Chinese airlines will choose for the C919. With south East Asian countries more and more having economic cooperation with China the pressure to choose for the C919 becomes greater as well. The DIrect operating costs DOC is important but financing methods are important as well.
@@philiptan2051 I would agree with you on politic has great influence on aircraft sales. But economic factor are not to be discounted as well. And political factor only apply to national carrier that is not publicly traded. Public listed carrier ( I do not have the ratio but I would estimate to be about half) would not be subject to this diplomatic binding. C919 success also greatly depend on FCC and EASA recognition on Chinese certification status. Without it then C919 market will be seriously restricted.
@@philiptan2051 By the way, COMAC has announce C919 list price at $99 millions. This is way above initial speculation of ~ $65 millions. Keeping the fact A320 neo list price is $110 millions this will be a big huddle for C919 export market.
@@philiptan2051 And China would never completely stop buying 737 and A320. Both Boeing and Airbus has assembly plant in China. So there are a lot in play there and it's not in China interest to have Boeing and Airbus pull out of local manufacturing.
I do not think the comparison of the two is necessarily relevant. This is because C919's brief is unlikely to compete against either A320 or B737 head on. It is more likely that C919 is used by Chinese aircraft manufacturer to gain first hand experience of developing passenger jetliners. They use large domestic aviation market to underwrite this learning process. The real competition will come in 2nd or 3rd generation products from China. This process has played out in automobile industry where now some domestic brands are competitive enough and start driving out foreign ones. They certainly plan on repeating this in aviation industry.
C919 being the first Chinese commercial mid-size jet aircraft has a lot on its wings, demonstrating safety, reliability, cost per passenger, fuel efficiency, and maintenance costs. It is likely a base upon which to build-on, and future Chinese Commercial jetliners will be better, more efficient, and have better performance. This is a good development for the commercial aircraft industry as competition will spur innovation, and put pressure on prices to stay affordable.
It is too early for any one to start comparing the two aircrafts,let the Chinese C919 prove itself because they are still relatively new in the market,as well as in the aviation world.Thank you.
Fixed hanging out wheels on C919 assure improved safety against the hidden folded ones not coming out sometimes while preparing for the landings is the plus point.
They don’t trust their engineers to design a dependable retractable landing gear. The fixed wheel design is insanity and very costly in terms of drag coefficient
I don't think it was correct as reported. There is no such thing as a "fixed or non-retractable landing gear design", the unretracted gears will cause high drag and unbearable noise after take-off and before landing. FYI, the 747 & DC10 aircraft have a manual nose gear extension system in the avionics compartment below the first-class cabin, which needs the co-pilot to get down there to crank them....I am not sure about Airbus systems
C919 has significantly smaller fuel tanks to make more space for cargo. Ｉsuppose that it means lower operating costs and higher yield economically for the shorter routes.
@@elias6918 Yup it is balancing of fuel versus the cargo carried. Actually both planes are the same as both need to operate in the same airline platform being the goods handling and passenger handling.
The Chinese have built an airliner which competes with Western manufactureres. A major milestone achieved. There will be improvements to the C 919 as time passes. I am sure the major Western manufactures must be nervously watching at this development.
It is the same for both...maybe C919 is a bit modern. But both can operate in the same airline platform being the cargo handling and passenger handling. Most china airlines have A320 handling equipment and if they buy C919, the handling equipment must still be the same. It cannot be different as it is Expansive to invest in new handling equipment. Most airlines prefer same machine or equipment to be used. However the MC21, airlines need to invest in new handling equipment to handle the cargo and passengers.
This new plane is more suited for domestic use with shorter range capabilities. It is much more affordable to buy, but is it also cheaper to maintain is the key point!
The sticker price has little to do with the actual selling price. The biggest factor in aircraft sales is fuel efficiency which depends on weight and aerodynamic drag. The C919 may be able to compete with 40 year old designs of Boeing and Airbus but since both of these companies are working on next generation designs it could be rendered completely obsolete within ten years.
I get the sense that the C919 was designed with very high altitude airports in mind. There’s a few airports in and around Tibet that are above 14000 feet in elevation. Most of them are surrounded by 20,000 foot plus peaks. Only Bolivia offers such high altitude challenges, almost but not quite as high. I am interested to hear from anyone who is more familiar with this subject area.
There definitely was a need for 3rd player in this market. In terms of performance and pricing this plane is a definite "go for" unit. The importance is directed toward operating costs and seemingly the c919 is best in that respect. It is likely going to have a slow start though as most carriers will be watching the performance reports coming from the biggest chinese customer airline. But certainly c919 is here to stay
Operating Cost ? Let's consider Airbus has 50% more range with same fuel capacity. That means ~30% less fuel per mile. So what has better operating cost then ?
There is rumour that GE has quoted them selling price of the LEAP1c engine 8 fold sky rocket compare to it sells to Airbus or Boeing. Seems Comac is inclined to choice from other suppliers such its own domestic engine or Russian PD-14 as alternative.
bite the bullet for now.... China must be self-sufficient in commercial aviation, when China commercial aviation does well and challenges the west, there will be sanctions - mark my words!
Their challenge is that it’s not enough to steal blueprints from other engine producers like they normally do when they want a domestic production of something. Engines are so complex that you can’t just move a few things and change the colour of the logo and then claim it’s their own invention. That is the only reason they don’t have their “own” engines yet.
@@vondahe You are too arrogant. China's fighter engine industry is very mature. Due to the lack of market for civil aviation engines, there has been no development. However, CJ1000 is currently being developed, and I believe we will see it soon.
The specs for the two aircrafts as reported in the vdo are comparable. While the C9191 price seems around 30% less it is for a smaller passenger load. However some of the most important factors are not mentioned, like: operational costs, fuel efficiency, noise etc... without those, a comparison is not realistic.
Operating Cost ? Let's consider Airbus has 50% more range with same fuel capacity. That means ~30% less fuel per mile. So what has better operating cost then ?
@Nordav Devito it's ok since the biggest customer which is China Eastern fleets >80% is narrow body. >500 fleets, most of their routes are less than 4000 km. So this is a huge target market.
@Paol Vrobel I think Chinese Company will ok if it makes a thin profit margin moreover COMAC is state owned company that put China's proud first rather than a huge profit like Boeing/Airbus did. It reminds me of China's phone maker did like Xiaomi or BBK.
For me personally the specifications are practically the same. The game changer will be economics. Big price difference. Technical support and parts moving forward will also give us an idea of its longevity as airliner.
in Details (fuselage details like the design of door frames, stringers, window frames) the 919 is heavily ''inspired'' from the 320 series. Airbus fuselages are different here from Boeing aluminium fuselages regarding such details, Airbus also uses a different type of crack stoppers. In reality the question ''who wins'' isn't important here, the real purpose of the 919 is to get independent from western technology (later with domestic engines), and the most important aircraft class is the one of the 320 and the 737. I don't really expect the 919 to sell a lot outside China, but I don't think they even plan to export a lot since their priority is their domestic market
The A320 has had a 50 year head start. Its systems are optimised and refined. The C919 is actually brilliant for a company that has started so late and it is still their first large passenger plane. So a comparison silly. Whats important is that we as consumers need more competition if we want to travel and experience the world cheaper !!!!
Learning and practices improves the breed of products. It's a shame other nations can't do it after buying them from the instant market source and still have no knowledge or even a a slight clue of how to build one of their own after 100 years.
Although the C919 is assembled in China, it relies heavily on Western components, including engines and avionics, from companies including GE (GE. N), Safran (SAF.PA) and Honeywell International (HON
it is a starting model of chinese commercial plane, also all commerical planes in world are using different equipment from all world,. boing and airbus are assembled with all parts from all world
I am not an expert, so I don't know how to figure out the fuel efficiency based on the range and fuel capacity ... or not sure if they are even related. Can some one help me with the fuel efficiency numbers? I think this is almost as important as the range on these planes. Thanks.
The range difference is two big by almost 2000 kilometres, Airbus engines must be soo efficient considering the fuel capacity is almost the same. However Comac is good plane the Chinese has made especially for short haul flights, not to mention the competitive price, which is a big factor to consider in developing countries. It's good to have another plane manufacturers besides the two giants Boeing and Airbus.
C919 has an extended range and body version under developing using the still in developing stage CJ-1000B engine while its cousin CR929 wide body will use the new generation CJ-2000 engine which the engine design and technology based on military WS-20B.
And the military WS-20B engine has shown its power and durability based on recent Chinese military Y-20 flown to Serbia 3 times back and forth for approximately 7000km and to Tonga 5 times back and forth for natural disaster aid with approximately morethan 10,000km.
weight....is gold, Boeing and Airbus go to great lengths to save every pound of weight...787, 350 are next gen composite aircraft, Neo and Max are gens ahead of any other aircraft..(weight, airfoils, new engines and software to get the most efficiency). the reason why hundreds of them are sold every year to major airlines replacing their old 320's and 737. Airlines buys the best not the cheapest, in the end it saves them money
@@jamesrey3221 at first C919 sell to domestic airlines, and it will take about 10 years to feed domestic airlines and at the same time, China will produce competitive modern engine to compete with Airbus and Boeing, just like how China make cars, it needs time to catch up.
C919 is not COMAC's first civilian aircraft. 6 years ago (2016) the ARJ-21 became commercially available. Until now (June 2022), 66 aircraft of the type have been delivered.
@@jamesrey3221 Seating Capacity: ARJ-21=90, MD82=172; Maximum Take-off Weight: ARJ-21=40t, MD82=82t; Length: ARJ21=33m; MD82=45m; Wingspan: ARJ21=27m, MD82=33m; How could ARJ21 be a clone of MD80? Exactly MD80/82 belongs to the same class of Boeing 737, Airbus A320 and Comac C919 but ARJ21 belongs to smaller regional jet class only on par with Bombardier CRJ700 series and Embraer E-Jets. Rear-mounting engine isn't MD-80's exclusive design. Small planes use this type of engine mount simply because it can easily mount or be easily upgraded to large diameter engines. If Boeing 737's engines were rear-mounted, 737max would not need MCAS for upgrading LEAP-1B engines, and it would not crash.
This video has several typo errors. View other videos on the comparison between C919, A320, B737Max, and MC21. Like I said else where, if this video producer were to make planes, I wouldn't buy their planes at all, when it cannot even by careful about details like range, weight, etc., of the products.
the engine has higher thrust (31000lb vs 27000lb) but 6500kg lower MTOW than A320.... C919 carries 2t less fuel but has 2000km less range..... seems the plane design or engine are not very efficient.... think the next gen will have better numbers when the type matures
But it cost way more cheaper, and for domestics flights, it's totally enough. Economically speaking, they are independents and they are more profitable at all scale from the constructor to the users of the aircraft.
I’m not getting into an argument. They’ve stolen or copied every airplane they have. Nothing original but their track record on quality is nothing to brag about. I imagine you should have national pride and I get it but come on.
@@manroke1 you would be crazy to think the Chinese can't be ahead of America now. They've been the first at global aptitude tests related to STEM based subjects for decades. They're the new innovators and scientists and engineers. Yes they stole western technology, but the Renaissance period would not have flourished without Muslim science.
I don't think it's faire to compare these two airplanes. A320 has already flown in the world for more than 20 years and has a very good reputation. Especially his reliability and safety have been widely recognized. C919 is another story. It has not been used in airlines, still in the process of test. When C919 has been operating in the airlines for 5 years, 10 years, it may be more convincing to compare the two airplanes.
ARJ21 and C919 are wonderful airplanes ! By watching them taking off steady into sky and land down gently, safely on ground! They're just the beautiful airplanes with good safety, value for it's prize ! 👌🙏
The deciding factor will be the operational profitability of each aircraft type. In terms of capital investment C919 is cheaper by 30% and although no comparison are made, relative operational cost particularly on fuel efficiency and requisite maintenance cost is presumed to be more cost effective for C919. Airline operation is a very challenging business and many owe their presence to flag carrying of the country than on strict commercial appraisal. With very few exception, airlines stocks offers few attraction for investment returns, if any. Introduction of much cheaper C919 with comparable capacity will be a compelling option, particularly for developing airliners.
It's really SHAMEFUL that many nations still can't produce one of their own after purchasing their own planes from the instant market source after 100 years. Go comment about that silly rabbits. You got OWNED silly rabbits 🐇 🐰.
What is mind boggling for me is the C919 empty weight is less than of the A320 but the C919 has a max. range of just over 4.000km shorter than the 6100 km of the A320. Maybe the reason is the C919 has less space available for larger fuel tanks which explains why it is lighter than the A320.
Yes, i agree. Great first attempt and much for the Chinese to be proud of, but I noticed a few other odd stats. For example the C919 is taller and longer yet fewer passengers (maybe narrower?) Lighter empty weight, fewer passengers, and smaller tanks, yet engine with greater thrust, which I always associated with takeoff weight (and drag, so maybe higher drag for C919?). So, overall some interesting design choices for C919 vs the 320.
The Chinese purposely designed smaller fuel tanks in C919. It's meant to target a slightly different market. It's said to target the high frequency high density markets with shorter routes. What it means is lower operating costs and probably higher cargo capacity. Combined with the newest technologies and design, the maintenance costs are probably lower as well. In the razor-thin margin commercial airline industry, these can be deciding factors for a lot of airlines.
The price of the C919 is quite competitive. Most of its other specifications are impressively similar to those of the A320, with the exception of its range. That will have to be improved significantly. Otherwise, a very good showing for a first-timer!
The duopoly between the a320 and 737 has been around so long. The segment requires more competition. I hope the 4th player from Russia the Irkut mc21 joins the competition soon and also embraer should also get into developing to become the 5th player.
Not an aviation expert here. Seems to me this is an excellent start. As many say below, time will tell in performance, reliability, repair & maintenance. Stick to domestic market to work out any issues & truly evaluate performance with your own pilots. China, you have plenty of time. Don't allow your beautiful plane to be besmirched by jealous hegemon who will stop at nothing to discredit you & stop your aviation industry. This NOT a level playing field !
"Do you think it [C919] can outperform the A320?" No, I don't think it can. However, since most Chinese airlines are state-owned enterprises, the state can simply order them to buy the C919. Success guaranteed!
Many countries already ordered this and.adding more, including Germany. The initial cost is more attractive as some buyers can buy 1 or more extras at the same price of more expensive options. The lower cost is a key, because although not best in range, but many third-party leased aircraft from airlines must pay for fuel costs, not the airline owners. This is one of it's good angels to help grow more and ongoing improvement same as related industries.
yes finally there's a chines plane that can compete head on the western competitors. it's going to do well domestically and the government has incentives for local carriers to support their OWN made in China plane it's doom to success coz the government can pressure the domestic carriers to patriotically purchase chinese rather the west. After all the west are competing in the C919 home term, chinese can just say sorry i'm not buying your plane simple is that. Go C919 GO we support you!
well it's not because i am from Europe, but the eu aircraft has more half of range then the Asian aircraft, but the cost of overall maintenance the Asian air craft gives out more profit, however the eu Aircraft negated it with long distance flights. so the only way to settle for which one is better is to choose the one with excellent customer service and experience of the flight.
The information given in this video is outdated! Please kindly not the following: 1) Only the dimensions of the physical plane is 99% correct, but the statistics on performance and price are both incorrect. 2) There are other officially produced videos by the respective commerical enterprises involved in the manufacture of those 2 planes, which would represent more up-to-date (and/or reliable) stats to use for comparison. 3) The C919 is not currently applying for certification by the European commercial aircraft certification yet, and unlikely to be approved for consideration until it becomes "relevant" for sale in European market. 4) These narrow body planes are not being used for Europe - East Asia routes because of their ranges is not adequate for the purposes. They are only suitable for use within their respective continental routes. In other words, they are meant for short-haul flights of up to 6500 km flying ranges, ie. not adequate for Europe-Asia or Asia - Africa flights.
why must the China plane apply for the European commercial aircraft certification. It is like a child born in China is not consider to be human unless it apply for a European birth cert. I am just asking, please dont condamn me, thanks
A320 could not be challenged by even Boeing 737. But the cheap and the best alternative found for low budget aircraft and developing nation. Safety and many aviations parameter yet to be surface when it operated as the commercial jet
China's own domestic market is more than enough to fill their orders. At that price range, there won't be short of buyers from Africa and South America for their domestic or short range destinations. Knowing the US, they will try all means to sabotage the C919's international market. Hopefully this will not be the case.
No Doubt, Budget airline with shorter flight distance could squeeze more out of the flight ticket prices seems C919 is cheaper and lower maintenance and fuel cost. 3 years gone, traveling needs to be back.
No they are being developed by China as we speak. The Engines are from General Electric and the flight control is from Canada and Landing Gear is from Germany. The Fuselage is 100 percent Chinese. So yeah China still a long way for indigenization but is slowly catching up
Not exactly, as it is just a regional jet, I guess for it to run in India, DGCA’s approval will be enough for domestic market, as FAA is only for US and EASA for Europe , getting ICAO’s approval won’t be difficult if the air craft is safe
30 millions dollars is a lot of money with price of 2x a320 you can buy almost 3x c919 i will vote for c919 because it will not be within USA sanction zone
Don't forget Airbus also has the A220 is which is also a new player in the market. I think it's even closer to the C919 in terms of passenger capactiy.
It's likely Airbus will further stretch the 220, to reach a capacity of 180 seats for a sort of 320 Neo replacement. A lot of orders are 321 Neos, here they have a ''wing of the future'' program with a new bigger composite wing with folding wing tips (to stay within ICAO class C) which will increase efficiency and MTOW for the 321 versions equipped with these wings, which will bring it closer to the performance (payload and range) of the 757 with a much better fuel burn compared to the 757.
@@user-st2ni3vd9l indeed, but the difference is the 220 is a state of the art aircraft with carbon fiber wings and a lightweight Aluminium Lithium cabin and fbw, while the ARJ 21uses a 1960s era DC-9 fuselage with a Aluminium wing
C919 is about 2/3 of Airbus 320. If the savings can be translated to saving in airfare without compromising of flight safety, then it will be good. Unless fuel efficiency for C919 is comparative with Airbus A320, then it's meaningfully.
Satisfy the domestic market is good enough in first ten years. Take time to be more reliable. Good chance to develop high value industrial supplies chain in China. It generated more high pay jobs
I sincerely expect the FAA to be just a strict on certification of the 919 as they are now with Boeing. That said, the market doesn’t need a 737 and A320 copy cat Comac should have developed a true 757 replacement.
At present it is not possible to say China's new plane C919 can win airbus A320 or not. It needs at least 20 years to approve reliability, advanced design, safety of quality,higher efficiency of fuel consumption, less population,less noise, good financing of long loan, easy mantaintance etc.
The C919 will be attractive for the Asian and African markets where Chinese have built up a strong business presence with their easier attractive finance options.
I’ve been heat Treating critical flight safety parts for Boeing and Airbus. I really hope China takes all the quality requirements without taking shortcuts. I personally would not fly or allow my family to fly in one of these for the first couple of years.
AIRBUS Wins. 919 Needs to prove it self on the commercial market first. Long way to go. Type certificated does not mean it will be better. It only means the aircraft has type and safe to fly.
The C919 can only fly from Boston to Chicago (4k km) but the A320 can fly from Boston to Los Angeles (6k km). The A320 cost $30 million more ($98 million) than the C919 ($68 million)
I don't know who is gonna take the C919 over A320 except for the Chinese ofc. Not only it has lower range meaning it costs more money to operate but also it is a Chinese plane and you don't get the guarantees of the much older much more established manufacturer for quality or parts and build quality.
List price is irrelevant, since no airline pays list price. Alsp purchase is just one cost, you can buy a lot of relatively cheap older 320s or 737 NGs but you won't compete with the newest models with them
The listed prices on the A320 are irrelevant as we all know huge discounts are negotiated with the lessors or the bigger airlines who choose a direct purchase. No figures given on seat costs per km which on reflection of given data should favour the A320. C919 will probably end up like Russian Sukhoi Superjet with just a domestic market unless they give them away.
I would rather buy the Embraer 195E2 instead of anything Chinese, to me 3 factors in aviation, reliability, reliability, and reliability, Embraer has earned it over time! China has not even begun!
We badly need a third serious player in this segment. However I am sure the other two parties will pull out all tricks to stop the third party to join the party. But I hope that the third party will succeed. All the very best.
China is having almost double the population of America and Europe combined. China will also grow to become a giant in the business world. Just domestic needs alone will do to help the Comac to commercially take off.
@@HungNguyen-bf8qs true but the west will do everything to damage/smear China commercial aviation to maintain their dominance and if all else fails, their government will sanction China commercial aviation.
@@justme6275 China has top geniuses in every field already. No matter how the West tries, all their attempts to smear China will be in vain. All the statistics point at the new world order led by China, not only commercial aviation but in all aspects of business, economics and scientific endeavour.
China plans to buy 1,000 c919
@@chuishuichuishui Great news for the engine-makers, and all the other foreign suppliers, involved in the project !
This is a breakthrough in China. It can fly to the sky, fly reliably, gain public recognition, and ensure safety. The range can be improved in the future. If we don't do it now, China will still not be able to manufacture large aircraft after 10 years. I think This is a great breakthrough
It would be except the main critical components aren't made in China.
@@kaitoshinichi You learn how to walk before you run. Airbus is an amalgamation of components, including critical ones, produced by various countries around the world. With globalization that's how things are produced with the benefits being lower prices and better products. As time progresses more and more localized technology will be used, but only if there's a price performance advantage.
@@DailyBeatings yet their own media keeps portraying it as all components were own made. Just like their high speed rail. After all these years, only the frame is own made and the critical components are foreign made.
Most importantly, even though it creates great nationalism, the citizens actually don't benefit. It's the state owned company that profits.
@@kaitoshinichi Please, I've seen the media coverage and they haven't been portraying the aircraft as 100% indigenous, you just made that up. Unlike in the past with joint-venture production China's trains are now mostly indigenous with a few foreign made components, just like everything else produced in this world. You have globalization with a diversified supply chain. The whole comparative advantage versus absolute advantage theory. You should probable read up on the topic.
What are you talking about that citizens don't benefit? Aircraft production creates jobs and any excess profits secured by a SOE goes into the general fund, which means a reduction in generating tax revenue. The investor class doesn't profit, however there's not enough private capital available to take on the duopoly of Airbus and Boeing, so the point is moot.
You really don't know what you're talking about, so my suggestion is that you keep quiet before you make a bigger fool of yourself...🤣😂🤣😂
@@kaitoshinichi The west sanction C919 with core components then China won't buy their planes simple is that. It's part of business we buy and sell and they sell and we buy the west can't have both ways, sell their planes and not allow China to buy their engines that's not fair. So worry Xinnie have confidence chinese people like you are very smart just go to Silicon Valley and see for yourself, that''s your answer buddy!
both are beautiful aircrafts - the C919 will be a good work horse for the domestic market and a good contender to break the duopoly of Airbus and boeing. Airbus, being an older manufacturer, would have the advantage of experience and design philosophy to iron out teething issues associated with new planes.
That's a logic fallacy, to claim that an older manufacturer equals a better experience in aircraft design.
Do you still want to buy a Boeing plane?
Steven, Joe Biden has a lot of experience in politics.
.. I hope you are smarter than him!
C919 died all died. RIP ccp pigs
Voce e Brasileiro?
I think China still need 10 years of experience In competing with Airbus and Boing, but Chin’s growth is extraordinary!!
By that time Airbus and Boeing will be another level.
@@MrScientific007
And nobody has the money to buy it based on current very high inflation while the chinese already has its own product. So what is the advantage and benefit for another level but will only be a display item inside the hangar??? 😭😭
I don't actually think airbus on boeing have new designs in the scope atleast nothing that has been announced yet so they'll have at least the 10 years before they get a new plane to market anyways.
@@MrScientific007 I doubt so....as China have a larger market and more scientist and engineers in china. In no time China planes will more advance. Just like 5G and China infrastructure feats....
@@elias6918 Neo, 737max, 787, 777x and the 350 are at another level...nothing can come close to them.
Great video, thanks for posting. Is pretty hard to Comac 919 set a new sales standard like A 320 has already, almost two decades ago. But the final sticker price is very attractive, fits with the money budgets of many emergent Asia/African/Latin america domestic operators. They seem to be almost exact performance numbers, but the C919 shortest range and passenger/pay load ratios show to be its weak point, but somehow could be equalized by the lowest final price. The most important fact, in the future in case this chinese aircraft get to be certified and operated is the reliabilty and post-sales parts and technical assistance, a must in this ultra competitive industry. Having said all that, the plane it self looks very good, sleek, elegant and clean shape. Good luck to Comac staff and manufacturing team.
The COMAC company leadership itself has many dislikes inside China by the Chinese because of its reluctance to use all of made in China parts but rather using a lot of european parts. The chinese gov has offered the military new engine which twice more powerful than the Leap but the COMAC chairman reject it, he also said rather than using the military engine COMAC is better developing its own engine which is CJ-1000A (an old generation engine and less powerful). In my guessing the reason for COMAC to use a lot of european or american parts is probably COMAC has a target toward european market sales.
I think they'll have the longer range variant of c919 quite soon after the launch of c919
If you don’t care about your customers buy the Comac
@@bobc5730 more like buy Boeing hahaha
I feel happy about the 1st step of Chinese big aircraft…..almost forgot China was still a very poor agricultural country 30 years ago….impressive.
I remember President Benson quote "It seems like only yesterday I was strafing so many of your homes. Yet here I am today, begging you not to make such good cars."
He was referring to Japanese though. But it's technically the same. Chinese Korean Japanese, all look same for White people
@@nyk2000m I know the differences which Benson are you referencing Lyold Benson?
Is not impressive at all...do you know Wright broders? Since then the aircraft in US and EU are developing in order to get to that point..and suddenly China build their own aircraft for 10 - 15 years. Hoho how come! There is a word for that... industrial espionage
I don't trust Chines made
Yes, they moved on from the Tienan Square Massacre and took advantage of the global support to grow magnificently. But I still feel sorry for their people still living in such a dictatorship, another Russia of Asia.
China is going to be a serious competitor in hi - tech items sooner or later and commercial aircrafts are no exception. USA led West is to count on it.Moreover, it must keep in mind that just like USA due to its large area and large population it does not have to depend too much on overseas market.
US and NATO only consist of 660 million people while China alone consist of 1.4 billion people and this is more than twice the size of the so called "international community".
Khurshid A,
Don't forget a lot of know how from US are stolen from Germany and England.
80% of the c919 is made in europe and US. Without western supply this jet won’t fly
Under the planenit still says Made in china
I wish the C919 can fly from Guangzhou to Tokyo non-stop!
C919 has a range of 4000km and Guangzhou to Tokyo is ~3000km - non-stop ok?
Should be no problem
Air bus320 proved supermicy.
@@mohammedqamarahmed5490 Tell that to the family who lost their loved one.... AIRBUS and BOEING are unreliable companies that compete for money.
@@mohammedqamarahmed5490 . So are the Malay supremacy claim in Malaysia. Go and see the claims besides the power used to control weak and uneducated.
The airbus A320 is a relatively ‘old’ aircraft and now it is a good time to introduce the comac 919 as Boeing 737max is still having an image problem. Most important is the direct operating costs of A320 vs C919. The size and the performance are quite comparable between the C919 and the Airbus A320. The C919 is the only ‘new’ midrange aircraft in the market apart from the B737max. Many airlines will have to replace their Airbus fleet and the C919 has a big chance to enter the market. China’s domestic market is big and growing fast which certainly can accommodate the C919 for many years to come. The C919 is an excellent candidate in south East Asia, Africa and Latin America.
737 Max the only 'new' midrange aircraft? Have you forgot A320 neo?
Airline which need to replace A320 ceo (The variant used in this video for comparison) will most likely go for A320 neo to save cost on logistic, maintenance, spare part and pilot training.
@@kmanliberty1065 true but the A320 neo is based on the A320 design and it is relatively more expensive than the C919. Aircraft sale is based not on costs only but more on politics. If the EU leans towards the usa’s policy than Chinese airlines will choose for the C919. With south East Asian countries more and more having economic cooperation with China the pressure to choose for the C919 becomes greater as well. The DIrect operating costs DOC is important but financing methods are important as well.
@@philiptan2051 I would agree with you on politic has great influence on aircraft sales. But economic factor are not to be discounted as well.
And political factor only apply to national carrier that is not publicly traded. Public listed carrier ( I do not have the ratio but I would estimate to be about half) would not be subject to this diplomatic binding.
C919 success also greatly depend on FCC and EASA recognition on Chinese certification status. Without it then C919 market will be seriously restricted.
@@philiptan2051 By the way, COMAC has announce C919 list price at $99 millions. This is way above initial speculation of ~ $65 millions. Keeping the fact A320 neo list price is $110 millions this will be a big huddle for C919 export market.
@@philiptan2051 And China would never completely stop buying 737 and A320. Both Boeing and Airbus has assembly plant in China. So there are a lot in play there and it's not in China interest to have Boeing and Airbus pull out of local manufacturing.
I do not think the comparison of the two is necessarily relevant. This is because C919's brief is unlikely to compete against either A320 or B737 head on. It is more likely that C919 is used by Chinese aircraft manufacturer to gain first hand experience of developing passenger jetliners. They use large domestic aviation market to underwrite this learning process. The real competition will come in 2nd or 3rd generation products from China. This process has played out in automobile industry where now some domestic brands are competitive enough and start driving out foreign ones. They certainly plan on repeating this in aviation industry.
Third world market is large :))
good view
C919 being the first Chinese commercial mid-size jet aircraft has a lot on its wings, demonstrating safety, reliability, cost per passenger, fuel efficiency, and maintenance costs. It is likely a base upon which to build-on, and future Chinese Commercial jetliners will be better, more efficient, and have better performance. This is a good development for the commercial aircraft industry as competition will spur innovation, and put pressure on prices to stay affordable.
just because they copied 90 percent of the design from A320
@@leejm4497 blablabla😅
我觉得C919并没有非常便宜，可能主要是配件便宜。
Just because all critical components are imported
@@leejm4497 let go of your stereotypes
It is too early for any one to start comparing the two aircrafts,let the Chinese C919 prove itself because they are still relatively new in the market,as well as in the aviation world.Thank you.
Fixed hanging out wheels on C919 assure improved safety against the hidden folded ones not coming out sometimes while preparing for the landings is the plus point.
They don’t trust their engineers to design a dependable retractable landing gear. The fixed wheel design is insanity and very costly in terms of drag coefficient
I don't think it was correct as reported. There is no such thing as a "fixed or non-retractable landing gear design", the unretracted gears will cause high drag and unbearable noise after take-off and before landing. FYI, the 747 & DC10 aircraft have a manual nose gear extension system in the avionics compartment below the first-class cabin, which needs the co-pilot to get down there to crank them....I am not sure about Airbus systems
It will depend on airline’s type of operation. Short or long haul, maintenance costs and reliability.
3:58 the thrust on the airbus320 is 120KN right? Why is the slide showing the wrong information??
Typo
I was wondering about that too.
Egregious mistake！Proofreading needs improvement.
With similar engine and similar amount of fuel, why does the range differ so much?
C919 has significantly smaller fuel tanks to make more space for cargo. Ｉsuppose that it means lower operating costs and higher yield economically for the shorter routes.
Must be fuel efficiency
@@inyourphace1690 I think so. They customize their need in range of their country.
I'd imagine they could make a plane with few thousand tonnes less cargo and that could be used as fuel?
@@elias6918 Yup it is balancing of fuel versus the cargo carried.
Actually both planes are the same as both need to operate in the same airline platform being the goods handling and passenger handling.
The Chinese have built an airliner which competes with Western manufactureres. A major milestone achieved. There will be improvements to the C 919 as time passes. I am sure the major Western manufactures must be nervously watching at this development.
Yeah sure, after how many crashes
I do not know many crashes. Perhaps you do. Please enlighten the viewers as to how many crashes and when they took place.
Not if they hack and cheat their way and irritate legit companies ....the aviation industry has the most strictest certifications.
@@powderskier5547 lol, jalous ass
Looser KKK,
Foward china
Embraer>
Embraer has the cleanest record of ant aircraft manufacturer. Their E-jets are the safest in the sky
It is the same for both...maybe C919 is a bit modern. But both can operate in the same airline platform being the cargo handling and passenger handling. Most china airlines have A320 handling equipment and if they buy C919, the handling equipment must still be the same. It cannot be different as it is Expansive to invest in new handling equipment. Most airlines prefer same machine or equipment to be used.
However the MC21, airlines need to invest in new handling equipment to handle the cargo and passengers.
The more cost effective aircraft wins.
This new plane is more suited for domestic use with shorter range capabilities. It is much more affordable to buy, but is it also cheaper to maintain is the key point!
Exactly, give this plane some time, and time will tell.
The sticker price has little to do with the actual selling price. The biggest factor in aircraft sales is fuel efficiency which depends on weight and aerodynamic drag. The C919 may be able to compete with 40 year old designs of Boeing and Airbus but since both of these companies are working on next generation designs it could be rendered completely obsolete within ten years.
You didn't tell us what is probably the most important statistic - the fuel consumption per passenger per km.
I get the sense that the C919 was designed with very high altitude airports in mind. There’s a few airports in and around Tibet that are above 14000 feet in elevation. Most of them are surrounded by 20,000 foot plus peaks. Only Bolivia offers such high altitude challenges, almost but not quite as high. I am interested to hear from anyone who is more familiar with this subject area.
There definitely was a need for 3rd player in this market. In terms of performance and pricing this plane is a definite "go for" unit. The importance is directed toward operating costs and seemingly the c919 is best in that respect. It is likely going to have a slow start though as most carriers will be watching the performance reports coming from the biggest chinese customer airline. But certainly c919 is here to stay
3rd player was killed; Fokker 70 - 100 - 130 etc
Operating Cost ? Let's consider Airbus has 50% more range with same fuel capacity. That means ~30% less fuel per mile. So what has better operating cost then ?
Yes...If we want to travel the world easier and cheaper.....then i hope and wish success to the c919, the russian jet and many many more !!!!!!
Argument can be made Embraer is the 3rd option. The E190 is a very nice plane and the E-jets are the safest planes in the sky.
There is rumour that GE has quoted them selling price of the LEAP1c engine 8 fold sky rocket compare to it sells to Airbus or Boeing. Seems Comac is inclined to choice from other suppliers such its own domestic engine or Russian PD-14 as alternative.
bite the bullet for now.... China must be self-sufficient in commercial aviation, when China commercial aviation does well and challenges the west, there will be sanctions - mark my words!
短视的美国人总是高看自己的实力，而中国人总是不信邪，漫天要价的后果就是：等中国研发完成自己的引擎，美国人破产
They are developing their own engine, which might be ready in next 5-6 yrs
@@areenbhalekar949 Under pressure, people will work a lot faster.
@@charleschoy2327 hmm
Great progress! But China needs to produce its own advanced engines to be fully competitive and self-sufficient. I'm sure it will get there.
Their challenge is that it’s not enough to steal blueprints from other engine producers like they normally do when they want a domestic production of something. Engines are so complex that you can’t just move a few things and change the colour of the logo and then claim it’s their own invention. That is the only reason they don’t have their “own” engines yet.
@@vondahe You are too arrogant. China's fighter engine industry is very mature. Due to the lack of market for civil aviation engines, there has been no development. However, CJ1000 is currently being developed, and I believe we will see it soon.
The specs for the two aircrafts as reported in the vdo are comparable. While the C9191 price seems around 30% less it is for a smaller passenger load. However some of the most important factors are not mentioned, like: operational costs, fuel efficiency, noise etc... without those, a comparison is not realistic.
you can see that it is not as efficient as the aibus by the 2000 less km that can range!
Operating Cost ? Let's consider Airbus has 50% more range with same fuel capacity. That means ~30% less fuel per mile. So what has better operating cost then ?
The C919 price is >20% cheaper than A320. This is a huge gap since airlines business is in a super thin margin.
@Nordav Devito it's ok since the biggest customer which is China Eastern fleets >80% is narrow body. >500 fleets, most of their routes are less than 4000 km. So this is a huge target market.
@Paol Vrobel I think Chinese Company will ok if it makes a thin profit margin moreover COMAC is state owned company that put China's proud first rather than a huge profit like Boeing/Airbus did. It reminds me of China's phone maker did like Xiaomi or BBK.
I wont be getting on any chinese made plane, I dont care how cheap the flight is, would rather stay home
@@powderskier5547 But you can fly with MAX.
@Paol Vrobel true, major airlines gets big discount, they do not pay the SRP....they buy the best not the cheapest.
Good review thanks for that
For me personally the specifications are practically the same. The game changer will be economics. Big price difference. Technical support and parts moving forward will also give us an idea of its longevity as airliner.
in Details (fuselage details like the design of door frames, stringers, window frames) the 919 is heavily ''inspired'' from the 320 series. Airbus fuselages are different here from Boeing aluminium fuselages regarding such details, Airbus also uses a different type of crack stoppers.
In reality the question ''who wins'' isn't important here, the real purpose of the 919 is to get independent from western technology (later with domestic engines), and the most important aircraft class is the one of the 320 and the 737. I don't really expect the 919 to sell a lot outside China, but I don't think they even plan to export a lot since their priority is their domestic market
It's certification is done,it will prevail for sure nearly 30% cheaper,it's using good engines and I am sure it's later models will do wonders
The A320 has had a 50 year head start. Its systems are optimised and refined. The C919 is actually brilliant for a company that has started so late and it is still their first large passenger plane. So a comparison silly.
Whats important is that we as consumers need more competition if we want to travel and experience the world cheaper !!!!
A good addition to aviation industry by the Chinese. I wish them sucess.
Americans & Europeans teached them how to build planes when they started to build their factories and planes in China.
American and European don't teach each other, why would they "teach" Chinese?
Learning and practices improves the breed of products.
It's a shame other nations can't do it after buying them from the instant market source and still have no knowledge or even a a slight clue of how to build one of their own after 100 years.
true, the MD80 was license built in China...Comac AR21 is a clone of the MD80
The are quite similar, though the Airbus is a little ahead in most aspects except one - the big difference in monetary price.
Although the C919 is assembled in China, it relies heavily on Western components, including engines and avionics, from companies including GE (GE. N), Safran (SAF.PA) and Honeywell International (HON
it is a starting model of chinese commercial plane, also all commerical planes in world are using different equipment from all world,. boing and airbus are assembled with all parts from all world
Source: trust me bro
C919 looks like it could compete very well with the À320.
I am not an expert, so I don't know how to figure out the fuel efficiency based on the range and fuel capacity ... or not sure if they are even related.
Can some one help me with the fuel efficiency numbers? I think this is almost as important as the range on these planes. Thanks.
The range difference is two big by almost 2000 kilometres, Airbus engines must be soo efficient considering the fuel capacity is almost the same.
However Comac is good plane the Chinese has made especially for short haul flights, not to mention the competitive price, which is a big factor to consider in developing countries.
It's good to have another plane manufacturers besides the two giants Boeing and Airbus.
C919 has an extended range and body version under developing using the still in developing stage CJ-1000B engine while its cousin CR929 wide body will use the new generation CJ-2000 engine which the engine design and technology based on military WS-20B.
And the military WS-20B engine has shown its power and durability based on recent Chinese military Y-20 flown to Serbia 3 times back and forth for approximately 7000km and to Tonga 5 times back and forth for natural disaster aid with approximately morethan 10,000km.
weight....is gold, Boeing and Airbus go to great lengths to save every pound of weight...787, 350 are next gen composite aircraft, Neo and Max are gens ahead of any other aircraft..(weight, airfoils, new engines and software to get the most efficiency).
the reason why hundreds of them are sold every year to major airlines replacing their old 320's and 737. Airlines buys the best not the cheapest, in the end it saves them money
@@jamesrey3221 at first C919 sell to domestic airlines, and it will take about 10 years to feed domestic airlines and at the same time, China will produce competitive modern engine to compete with Airbus and Boeing, just like how China make cars, it needs time to catch up.
C919 great for the Chinese market. But western buyers will buy Airbus for a whole range of reasons.
Mainly because they will continue to fly 3 months after delivery where the Chinese thing won’t
C919 can beat Airbus in near future with upgradartion and technical advancement. The competition will finally benefit the passengers
This isn't really a question! Of course A320(Neo) is the best aircraft in this size. Even before Boeing.
C919 is not COMAC's first civilian aircraft. 6 years ago (2016) the ARJ-21 became commercially available. Until now (June 2022), 66 aircraft of the type have been delivered.
ARJ-21 is based (clone) of the MD80 which had a license to build in China.
@@jamesrey3221 Seating Capacity: ARJ-21=90, MD82=172; Maximum Take-off Weight: ARJ-21=40t, MD82=82t; Length: ARJ21=33m; MD82=45m; Wingspan: ARJ21=27m, MD82=33m; How could ARJ21 be a clone of MD80? Exactly MD80/82 belongs to the same class of Boeing 737, Airbus A320 and Comac C919 but ARJ21 belongs to smaller regional jet class only on par with Bombardier CRJ700 series and Embraer E-Jets. Rear-mounting engine isn't MD-80's exclusive design. Small planes use this type of engine mount simply because it can easily mount or be easily upgraded to large diameter engines. If Boeing 737's engines were rear-mounted, 737max would not need MCAS for upgrading LEAP-1B engines, and it would not crash.
A question: the max fuel and empty weight of two planes are similar, why is there a big gap (2000km) between theirs range?
This video has several typo errors. View other videos on the comparison between C919, A320, B737Max, and MC21.
Like I said else where, if this video producer were to make planes, I wouldn't buy their planes at all, when it cannot even by careful about details like range, weight, etc., of the products.
the engine has higher thrust (31000lb vs 27000lb) but 6500kg lower MTOW than A320.... C919 carries 2t less fuel but has 2000km less range..... seems the plane design or engine are not very efficient.... think the next gen will have better numbers when the type matures
But it cost way more cheaper, and for domestics flights, it's totally enough. Economically speaking, they are independents and they are more profitable at all scale from the constructor to the users of the aircraft.
In short flight hrs, fuel efficient cruise is not much to consider. They stress more on frequent operation route.
Let’s all be bloody honest here. Who would fly on a Chinese made plane?
People can, if it’s safe
They've produced 5 generation fighter jets and on their move to 6th generation. Why wouldn't u?
I’m not getting into an argument. They’ve stolen or copied every airplane they have. Nothing original but their track record on quality is nothing to brag about. I imagine you should have national pride and I get it but come on.
@@manroke1 you would be crazy to think the Chinese can't be ahead of America now. They've been the first at global aptitude tests related to STEM based subjects for decades. They're the new innovators and scientists and engineers. Yes they stole western technology, but the Renaissance period would not have flourished without Muslim science.
I don't think it's faire to compare these two airplanes. A320 has already flown in the world for more than 20 years and has a very good reputation. Especially his reliability and safety have been widely recognized.
C919 is another story. It has not been used in airlines, still in the process of test. When C919 has been operating in the airlines for 5 years, 10 years, it may be more convincing to compare the two airplanes.
ARJ21 and C919 are wonderful airplanes ! By watching them taking off steady into sky and land down gently, safely on ground! They're just the beautiful airplanes with good safety, value for it's prize ! 👌🙏
The deciding factor will be the operational profitability of each aircraft type. In terms of capital investment C919 is cheaper by 30% and although no comparison are made, relative operational cost particularly on fuel efficiency and requisite maintenance cost is presumed to be more cost effective for C919.
Airline operation is a very challenging business and many owe their presence to flag carrying of the country than on strict commercial appraisal. With very few exception, airlines stocks offers few attraction for investment returns, if any. Introduction of much cheaper C919 with comparable capacity will be a compelling option, particularly for developing airliners.
MC-21 is really nice also
unfortunately Russia domestic market is not very big
@@davidz7858 China is there also
Wow.. Congratulations China. Every few weeks I hear about some new development. Greetings from Nepal.
yeah but everything made in china breaks or collapses, enjoy your chinese made products
It looks like a mistake in the thrust slide 138KN Vs 1200KN. Do better homework next time.
Yep. I just spotted that too
It's really SHAMEFUL that many nations still can't produce one of their own after purchasing their own planes from the instant market source after 100 years.
Go comment about that silly rabbits.
You got OWNED silly rabbits 🐇 🐰.
What is mind boggling for me is the C919 empty weight is less than of the A320 but the C919 has a max. range of just over 4.000km shorter than the 6100 km of the A320. Maybe the reason is the C919 has less space available for larger fuel tanks which explains why it is lighter than the A320.
Its also depends on what engines they use.
Yes, i agree. Great first attempt and much for the Chinese to be proud of, but I noticed a few other odd stats. For example the C919 is taller and longer yet fewer passengers (maybe narrower?) Lighter empty weight, fewer passengers, and smaller tanks, yet engine with greater thrust, which I always associated with takeoff weight (and drag, so maybe higher drag for C919?). So, overall some interesting design choices for C919 vs the 320.
This can already save them a lot of money, consider how big a market within their own country, 14B people.
The Chinese purposely designed smaller fuel tanks in C919. It's meant to target a slightly different market. It's said to target the high frequency high density markets with shorter routes. What it means is lower operating costs and probably higher cargo capacity. Combined with the newest technologies and design, the maintenance costs are probably lower as well. In the razor-thin margin commercial airline industry, these can be deciding factors for a lot of airlines.
@@cfeifei1874 I think 1.4 billion people, not "14B" !
The price of the C919 is quite competitive. Most of its other specifications are impressively similar to those of the A320, with the exception of its range. That will have to be improved significantly. Otherwise, a very good showing for a first-timer!
Of course A320 win. A320 has been in the market for sometime. But in 10 to 20 years the C919 will be at par or even better.
The duopoly between the a320 and 737 has been around so long. The segment requires more competition. I hope the 4th player from Russia the Irkut mc21 joins the competition soon and also embraer should also get into developing to become the 5th player.
Not an aviation expert here. Seems to me this is an excellent start. As many say below, time will tell in performance, reliability, repair & maintenance. Stick to domestic market to work out any issues & truly evaluate performance with your own pilots. China, you have plenty of time. Don't allow your beautiful plane to be besmirched by jealous hegemon who will stop at nothing to discredit you & stop your aviation industry. This NOT a level playing field !
More competition should always benefit consumers!
"Do you think it [C919] can outperform the A320?" No, I don't think it can. However, since most Chinese airlines are state-owned enterprises, the state can simply order them to buy the C919. Success guaranteed!
.......their airlines are free to order from airbus as they wish but no Boeing garbage though !
Many countries already ordered this and.adding more, including Germany.
The initial cost is more attractive as some buyers can buy 1 or more extras at the same price of more expensive options.
The lower cost is a key, because although not best in range, but many third-party leased aircraft from airlines must pay for fuel costs, not the airline owners.
This is one of it's good angels to help grow more and ongoing improvement same as related industries.
@@SafepathUS What's the price? Ball park?
yes finally there's a chines plane that can compete head on the western competitors. it's going to do well domestically and the government has incentives for local carriers to support their OWN made in China plane it's doom to success coz the government can pressure the domestic carriers to patriotically purchase chinese rather the west. After all the west are competing in the C919 home term, chinese can just say sorry i'm not buying your plane simple is that. Go C919 GO we support you!
Same as Boeing use US govt to attack Canada Bombadier till it's disssolved and taken by Airbus.
C919 gives the world more choices. Only Boeing and Airbus are not enough for competition or progress of aviation development.
well it's not because i am from Europe, but the eu aircraft has more half of range then the Asian aircraft, but the cost of overall maintenance the Asian air craft gives out more profit, however the eu Aircraft negated it with long distance flights.
so the only way to settle for which one is better is to choose the one with excellent customer service and experience of the flight.
It is good to have competition. Always.
C919 can never beat a320 or Boeing 737. But it's cheaper price is more affordable for poorer countries, which is a great thing.
We will see!!
The information given in this video is outdated!
Please kindly not the following:
1) Only the dimensions of the physical plane is 99% correct, but the statistics on performance and price are both incorrect.
2) There are other officially produced videos by the respective commerical enterprises involved in the manufacture of those 2 planes, which would represent more up-to-date (and/or reliable) stats to use for comparison.
3) The C919 is not currently applying for certification by the European commercial aircraft certification yet, and unlikely to be approved for consideration until it becomes "relevant" for sale in European market.
4) These narrow body planes are not being used for Europe - East Asia routes because of their ranges is not adequate for the purposes. They are only suitable for use within their respective continental routes. In other words, they are meant for short-haul flights of up to 6500 km flying ranges, ie. not adequate for Europe-Asia or Asia - Africa flights.
why must the China plane apply for the European commercial aircraft certification. It is like a child born in China is not consider to be human unless it apply for a European birth cert. I am just asking, please dont condamn me, thanks
@@sizzflair6634 because Europeans think they’re the last cookie in the jar
A320 could not be challenged by even Boeing 737. But the cheap and the best alternative found for low budget aircraft and developing nation. Safety and many aviations parameter yet to be surface when it operated as the commercial jet
It’s a good start, but a long way to go for commercial airplane. It will take decades to build reputation and performance!
China's own domestic market is more than enough to fill their orders. At that price range, there won't be short of buyers from Africa and South America for their domestic or short range destinations. Knowing the US, they will try all means to sabotage the C919's international market. Hopefully this will not be the case.
No Doubt, Budget airline with shorter flight distance could squeeze more out of the flight ticket prices seems C919 is cheaper and lower maintenance and fuel cost. 3 years gone, traveling needs to be back.
The range was a conservative number for C919, the real range will expand after years operation.
Although the new plane has a lot of advantages in its capabilities. I still trust those pioneer manufacturer
What engine, which avionics are being used for C919 ? Are they all Chinese made ?
No they are being developed by China as we speak. The Engines are from General Electric and the flight control is from Canada and Landing Gear is from Germany. The Fuselage is 100 percent Chinese. So yeah China still a long way for indigenization but is slowly catching up
@@priyanksaikia5549 - Are the employed CAD/CAM systems also developed by China ? Or they are just using CATIA, SolidWorks ... ?
@@tocu9808 Yes I think so.
My question is?could compact construct more big Air craft
80 billion (US$11 billion) will be invested in the next five years to expand production capacity to 150 aircraft per year.
The Chinese C919 AIrliner Must be certified by ICAO, FAA and EASA to be manufactured and sell overseas to potential customers.
Not exactly, as it is just a regional jet, I guess for it to run in India, DGCA’s approval will be enough for domestic market, as FAA is only for US and EASA for Europe , getting ICAO’s approval won’t be difficult if the air craft is safe
@@areenbhalekar949 EASA for UK? you're dreamming.
@@phyleasfogg5349 oh sry, I should have written Europe instead
Most buyers will be domestic, developing countries. The price is attractive!
30 millions dollars is a lot of money
with price of 2x a320 you can buy almost 3x c919 i will vote for c919 because it will not be within USA sanction zone
Major airlines buys the best not the cheapest, anyway they get major discounts and no aircraft get paid by its SRP.
Good luck to Comac 919! Cheaper by 30M! If it proves safe -and is not sabotaged by the Vile West- it will prove much more attractive!
Now price for c919 is $101 millions ..
Don't forget Airbus also has the A220 is which is also a new player in the market. I think it's even closer to the C919 in terms of passenger capactiy.
It's likely Airbus will further stretch the 220, to reach a capacity of 180 seats for a sort of 320 Neo replacement. A lot of orders are 321 Neos, here they have a ''wing of the future'' program with a new bigger composite wing with folding wing tips (to stay within ICAO class C) which will increase efficiency and MTOW for the 321 versions equipped with these wings, which will bring it closer to the performance (payload and range) of the 757 with a much better fuel burn compared to the 757.
In terms of seat layout, COMAC's ARJ 21 is the same product as the A220.
@@user-st2ni3vd9l indeed, but the difference is the 220 is a state of the art aircraft with carbon fiber wings and a lightweight Aluminium Lithium cabin and fbw, while the ARJ 21uses a 1960s era DC-9 fuselage with a Aluminium wing
Good job C919 ! You already win when people want to let you compare with older manufacturer of Airbus or Boeing !
C919 is about 2/3 of Airbus 320. If the savings can be translated to saving in airfare without compromising of flight safety, then it will be good. Unless fuel efficiency for C919 is comparative with Airbus A320, then it's meaningfully.
Satisfy the domestic market is good enough in first ten years. Take time to be more reliable. Good chance to develop high value industrial supplies chain in China. It generated more high pay jobs
Fuel efficiency? How about A320neo?
Airbus and Boeing use latest version of LEAP engine, the engine C919 use is not that efficient.
c919 is probably one generation behind boeing and airbus equivalents but it is a start.
Yeah its a start, just wait until they start faling out of the sky, chinese made
132kn vs 1200kn?
I sincerely expect the FAA to be just a strict on certification of the 919 as they are now with Boeing. That said, the market doesn’t need a 737 and A320 copy cat Comac should have developed a true 757 replacement.
At present it is not possible to say China's new plane C919 can win airbus A320 or not. It needs at least 20 years to approve reliability, advanced design, safety of quality,higher efficiency of fuel consumption, less population,less noise, good financing of long loan, easy mantaintance etc.
The C919 will be attractive for the Asian and African markets where Chinese have built up a strong business presence with their easier attractive finance options.
I’ve been heat Treating critical flight safety parts for Boeing and Airbus. I really hope China takes all the quality requirements without taking shortcuts. I personally would not fly or allow my family to fly in one of these for the first couple of years.
AIRBUS Wins. 919 Needs to prove it self on the commercial market first. Long way to go. Type certificated does not mean it will be better. It only means the aircraft has type and safe to fly.
The C919 can only fly from Boston to Chicago (4k km) but the A320 can fly from Boston to Los Angeles (6k km). The A320 cost $30 million more ($98 million) than the C919 ($68 million)
I don't know who is gonna take the C919 over A320 except for the Chinese ofc. Not only it has lower range meaning it costs more money to operate but also it is a Chinese plane and you don't get the guarantees of the much older much more established manufacturer for quality or parts and build quality.
Everyone wins ! If only two players, they buyers will pay premium , fewer choices. now they can choose C919 if they want to lower prices one.
Pricing
There are other contenders in this sector like Embraer and Bombardier’s CRJ’s which is very popular in Africa
performance of 919 may be a little bit behind but price is very competitive .
List price is irrelevant, since no airline pays list price.
Alsp purchase is just one cost, you can buy a lot of relatively cheap older 320s or 737 NGs but you won't compete with the newest models with them
The listed prices on the A320 are irrelevant as we all know huge discounts are negotiated with the lessors or the bigger airlines who choose a direct purchase. No figures given on seat costs per km which on reflection of given data should favour the A320. C919 will probably end up like Russian Sukhoi Superjet with just a domestic market unless they give them away.
I would rather buy the Embraer 195E2 instead of anything Chinese, to me 3 factors in aviation, reliability, reliability, and reliability, Embraer has earned it over time! China has not even begun!
Airbus is the winner!
Amazing .
China is doing great job
Range can be increased in future.
It's not about outperform, rather diversification, more effective utilisation and cost effective.
Boeing are currently unstable.
They are in comfort zone for so long given that US funds always pour to them as the national's corporate pride.
THIRTY MILLIONS MAKE DIFFERENCE TO THE COST. LOOKS LIKE C919 MORE COMFORTABLE TO THE PASSENGERS