Reaching the leading edge in technological regimes is an objective purposefully being pursued by China and the velocity of development in some technologies has been astonishing. However, the means employed for this pursuit of technology may not have been above board and there are frequent references to theft of design and documents by Chinese personnel working in industrial establishments in developed nations. This is euphemistically referred to as “Transfer of Technology”. Reverse engineering, with or without license, has been another route followed by China. However, the means employed do not detract from the results manifest. One of the areas where China has made significant strides is that of aerospace technology.
Much like India, the Chinese political scene is replete with symbolic slogans. Chinese President Xi Jinping coined the term “Chinese Dream” a little over two years ago and expounded on it during the 12th National Peoples’ Congress in March 2013. The Chinese Dream, much like the Indian “Acchhe Din” slogan, visualises better conditions for the Chinese people in the domestic context while in foreign relations, it stands for peace, development and cooperation. Since its initiation, Xi Jinping has helped nurture the slogan through constant expounding including by way of his Op-Ed diplomacy wherein he authors pieces of prose for Op-Ed pages of newspapers in countries he visits (see The Hindu dated September 17, 2014 for Xi Jinping’s write-up for Indian audiences). He has made the Chinese Dream a centrepiece of his agenda and the ultimate objective appears to be making China the axis of Asia. Industry and technology, wherein China still lags behind some developed nations as far as capability and research are concerned, is naturally a focal point of the Chinese Dream.
Reaching the leading edge in technological regimes is an objective purposefully being pursued by China and the velocity of development in some technologies has been astonishing. However, the means employed for this pursuit of technology may not have been above board and there are frequent references to theft of design and documents by Chinese personnel working in industrial establishments in developed nations. This is euphemistically referred to as “Transfer of Technology”. Reverse engineering, with or without license, has been another route followed by China. However, the means employed do not detract from the results manifest. One of the areas where China has made significant strides is that of aerospace technology.
The general feeling is that a ten per cent improvement over the A320/ Boeing 737 is an over-ambitious target...
Civil Transport Aircraft
Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC), a Shanghai-based state-owned company, was formed in 2008, and functions as the main aircraft manufacturer implementing large civil passenger aircraft programmes in China. It is engaged in the research and development, manufacture and flight tests of civil aircraft. The company also handles related businesses such as marketing, servicing, leasing and operations of civil aircraft. The COMAC internet site claims that it adheres to the principle of “development with Chinese characteristics”, a typical, euphemistic, oblique reference aimed at projecting China’s claims of self-reliant technological progress. Notwithstanding many sceptical views about the ‘indigenous’ content of China’s civil commercial aircraft development programme, the fact remains that COMAC appears set to produce civil airliners in more than one class of size and All Up Weight.
The C919
Some media wit pointed out that the ‘A’ of Airbus and the ‘B’ of Boeing are now going to be joined by the ‘C’ of COMAC in the narrow-body regime with the introduction of the C919 (short for COMAC 919). Chinese sources refer to the C919 as a “trunk liner” and COMAC itself terms it as “a short-medium range commercial trunk liner”. It is designed to provide a competitively priced aircraft in the class of Airbus A320 and the Boeing 737, both holding sway in the global, commercial single-aisle segment. The C919 is expected to have two cabin options - a 168-seat all-economy version and a 156-seat business and economy class mix version.
Although some media reports speak of a 180-seat all-economy, high density version, COMAC itself has never made such a projection. The basic version is designed to have a range of 4,075 km, while a later, extended range version is claimed to have a range of 5,555 km. According to COMAC, the economic life of the C919 is designed to be 90,000 flying hours/30 calendar years. COMAC claims that the fuel consumption and direct operating cost per-seat per-kilometre would be lower than those of “similar existing airplanes”. The obvious reference is to the Airbus A320 and the Boeing 737. There are plans to produce a basic version, an extended version, a shortened version, a cargo version, a special version possibly for military/police roles and a corporate version.
The C919 is going to be powered by the CFM Leap 1C engine which, like the Leap X for the A320 NEO, is attributed with a 15 per cent fuel saving over other CFM engines of comparable thrust. The Leap 1C is due to be certified in June 2015 and enter service in 2016. However, it is possible that the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) may permit C919 flight testing with Leap 1C even before the engine is formally certified. CFM is expected to deliver a complete LEAP-1C Integrated Propulsion System (IPS) for C919 programme in partnership with Nexcelle, a 50-50 joint venture between Middle River Aircraft System, a US-based, thrust reverser expert company and Aircelle, a Safran Group nacelle producer. CFM will provide the engine while Nexcelle will be in-charge of the nacelle and the thrust reverser. There was speculation about a Leap 1C assembly line being set up in China but CFM International is still discussing the matter with Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC). CFM is said to have apprehensions on related intellectual property rights.
The Xian MA60 preceded the ARJ21 to enter production as an airliner...
The C919 programme is projected as providing a ten per cent reduction in operating costs in comparison to Airbus A320 and Boeing 737. Obviously, that target relates to these two types as they existed when the target was set in 2008. Since then, Airbus and Boeing have both announced improved designs, the A320 NEO and Boeing 737 MAX, both narrow-body aircraft. The improvement claimed being 10 to 15 per cent reduction in fuel consumption on account of better airframe design and more fuel efficient engines. As the C919 is the first COMAC design of this size, the general feeling is that a ten per cent improvement over the A320/ Boeing 737 is an over-ambitious target and that even a match would be a notable achievement.
One of the reasons for this assessment is the significant, mid-stream change of material for the wing section. Earlier, COMAC had announced that the centre wing box section would be constructed of composite carbon material but later on, a change was made to conventional aluminium which is the material being used for the rest of the wing. The main reasons appear to be the certification by CAAC and the fact that composite materials would have cost much more than traditional ones. There was also the consideration that use of composites would have delayed the programme further due to the additional tests involved for certification. The tail and the movable structures are expected to be largely composite materials. Bombardier was reported last year of having plans to help COMAC get overseas approval for the C919 as it had two decades of experience in obtaining approvals for regional and business aircraft globally. The two companies jointly said in March 2012 that the C919 and Bombardier CSeries aircraft would share a common cockpit design. They also committed to cooperation in other related areas.
According to Xinhua, assembly of the first C919 is nearing completion and the first flight is expected at the end of 2015. The first commercial delivery is expected in 2018. Meanwhile, COMAC has received orders for 450 C919 airliners from 18 customers, mainly Chinese carriers and leasing companies. However, there is an interrogation mark over the certification by FAA and EASA who have not been involved in the development or testing. Should FAA/ EASA certification not be forthcoming, sales outside China would be impossible while even domestic sales would be dampened by the lack of American or European endorsement.
ARJ21
The ARJ21-700, advertised as China’s first indigenously designed regional jet airliner, obtained its type certification from CAAC on December 30, 2014. The programme was launched in 2002 but was dogged by delays and the prototype first flew at the end of 2008. Since then it has flown around 5,000 hours of test flights and achieved CAAC certification. FAA/ EASA certification may take a couple of years more. The ARJ21 is designed to compete against the Bombardier CS100, Embraer 190 and Sukhoi SSJ100 and is listed at a price of $30 million, a tag much lower than its competitors.
The first Chinese-assembled An-24T had its maiden flight on December 25, 1970...
The ARJ21-700 seats 78 passengers in a dual-class configuration and has 90 seats in a full economy class arrangement. Thus its seating capacity is lower than that of its competitors by 10 to 20 seats and has a shorter range. However, a second version, the yet-to-be-launched ARJ21-900, is expected to seat 115 and have an extended range. Its economic life is designed for 60,000 flying hours or 20 years.
To date, 278 firm orders have been notched up by COMAC, who, in the coming weeks, intend to deliver their first aircraft to the Chinese company Chengdu Airlines, which specialises in domestic flights from Chengdu. This would be important from the perspective of COMAC attaining revenue earning capacity after years of development. However, from the point of view of after sales experience, it would be an anxious clamber over the learning curve for COMAC.
The ARJ21 could well create problems with its initial clients that may prove to be a big headache for COMAC, with its lack of experience in the past to manage and grow up with. The absence of certification by FAA/EASA could well prove to be a blessing in disguise as it would mean that the launch clients would perforce be Chinese beginning with Chengdu Airlines.
MA60
The Xian MA60 preceded the ARJ21 to enter production as an airliner. It is a turboprop-powered commercial aircraft made by China Aviation Industry Corporation (CAVIC). The aircraft first flew in 1993 and was inducted into operations in 2004. It is produced by China’s Xi’an Aircraft Industrial Corporation under CAVIC. The MA60 is a stretched version of the Xian Y7-200A which was based on the Russian design Antonov An-24. It can operate in rugged conditions with limited ground support and has Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) capability. It received its type certificate from the CAAC in June 2000 but is not certified by FAA or EASA yet.
The Y20 is hailed by Chinese media as a landmark in Chinese aviation history...
The aircraft is in use by a dozen airlines and air forces around the world despite the lack of certification but has had problems keeping an encouraging safety record. The New Zealand government, in fact, issued an advisory to its citizens that if they flew in the Real Tonga Airlines MA60 while in Tonga, they did so at their own risk as it was not certified by acceptable regulators outside of China. The MA60 was a free gift to Real Tonga from the Chinese government. On February 10, 2015, with Tonga civil aviation authorities enacting legislation to align its regulations with New Zealand, the MA60 has been grounded subject to recertification. An updated version of the MA60, called MA600, made its maiden flight in September 2008. The aircraft is equipped with new avionics, passenger cabin and engines with higher thrust rating.