'>>1991559
I'd rather fly in a C919 than a 737 Max';

'I'd rather let someone else do the beta testing.';

'Rather chink shit than Boeing desu';

'An oligopoly of the world market with only two companies will lead to a corrupt structure like Boeing, but only when another option is added and there are three, will the principle of competition among companies be born.';

'>>1991559
>5 aircraft in service
No thanks';

'>>1991559
>Would you fly on a made in China plane?
No because to get anywhere that flies them I'd have to take a Boeing and die immediately after takeoff';

'>>1991636
I read that individual component failure and assembly fault problems are so pervasive, even the Chinese aviation authority won't allow a C919 to be delivered without individually going through a battery of tests that is almost as extensive as type certification test. The CCP knows that if any C919 has an accident, it will be a deep reputational hole to dig out of, and China may not be able to sell a single commercial airliner to a non-third world country for many decades to come.';

'>>1991561
fpbp';

'>>1991559
TRULY MOST IMPLESSIVE!
CHYNA NUMBA WAN!';

'>>1991559
Seems like a copy of the A320ceo. I'd never fly on one, not only because it's a chink deathtrap but because it isn't certified by any country that matters.';

'engines not even built by them, come back when they can actually make one from scratch instead of just putting prefabricated parts together';

'>>1992228
You could say that about ANY aircraft manufacturer. The Chink 320 uses the LEAP engine, which is a good powerplant by all standards and I probably wouldn’t be upset at the idea of flying in one. That said, no interest in going to the PRC unless they make an autonomous enclave for American huwhites because mainland China under the CCP is Hellish and you’re expected to get by without any labor rights.';

'ITT: chink shills';

'>>1993046
Scaling up production of rubber dogshit and commercial aircraft are two different things my guy';

'>>1993052
>fifth gen fighters
China needs starts mass producing meds';

'>>1993062
>didn't start development until after the first flight of American gen5s
>first flight after the F22 production run ended
>built entirely of stolen American technology
I'd be embarrassed bragging about the J-20. The only thing it got right is using canards and thrust vectoring together. Congrats on mass producing mediocrity I guess';

'>>1993052
Building ships and planes are different. They have very little experience in designing or building original airframes (not licensed from the USSR) in the commercial sector, they have no domestically-produced commercial jet engines, and no competitive domestically-produced avionics. Yeah they may have made significant progress in the last 40 years in the aviation sector but I would argue very little innovation considering much of the technical advancement is thanks to licensed manufacturing of Russian engines and airframes and copying western manufacturers. Also don’t assume that military advancement will somehow magically transfer to the commercial aviation sector; the two are not the same.';

'>>1993067
Zhang whining about moving goalposts then posts the biggest cope, switches sports, and breaks down into tears.
China numa wan!!!!!!!';

'>>1993067
forgot to mention, China is not the second strongest air force in the world, that title goes to the US Navy rumao';

'>>1993085
so what you're saying is Chinese are incompetent and need computers to do the design work for them?';

'>>1993091
China's airforce is rivaled by the aircraft of American boat boys. Embarrassing';

'>>1993096
China wasn't even remotely competitive until computers made their planes instead of the Soviets or God forbid their own nationals.
>>1993096
the gap from #1 to #2 is comically large. I genuinely want to go to war with China for the sole purpose of the embarrassment it would bring to the biggest stain on humanity. They won't touch Taiwan because they know they can't hold their own against the US. You kiddos need to sit down and get back to work making cheap plastic doodads because labor is all your country is good for.';

'>>1993085
I'm not saying they can't build ships man, I don't know why you keep referring to shipbuilding as an analogue for airplane manufacturing. Completely different animals.
>they don't need innovation
They most certainly do need innovation because there is no reason to invest in a domestically-produced Chinese airliner if airlines can purchase or lease western jets at a lower cost. With western jets the infrastructure already exists, and the airline will already be contracting with foreign companies for the engines anyways. If they want to break into the civil aviation market without daddy Xi forcing domestic airlines to purchase/lease domestic airframes they are gonna have to come up with something that offers a competitive advantage. They may be communist on paper but they are capitalists in practice.
>military-civilian advancement is the same
No. For civilian aviation the goal is to maximize profit margin by maximizing aircraft efficiency, safety, system integrity and redundancy, and get those MX intervals as wide as can be. The airline must operate in the black if it is to survive long-term. The more efficient the design the easier it is to meet that profitable threshold. The military cares only about performance, which can come at a significant operating costs (far in advance of the operating margin an airline has to work with). Designing a fighter and an airliner are two way different beasts. Pro-tip: the material sciences and aerodynamic principles are well known and established by this point. It is about designing the airframe and engines to suit the goals of the operator: minimum unit and operating costs with long service intervals and operational reliability. The difference between the military and civilian sector is that in the latter all 3 are required.';

'>>1993091
>large portion are transports
transport aircraft are vastly more powerful than combat aircraft. logistics win wars, and in terms of logistics the USAF has four times as many C-17's as the rest of the world combined, and vastly C-17's more than any countries fleet of woefully inferior stratetigc airlifters, and a fleet of C-130H's and C-130J's that dwarf any rival. the USAF has more ski equipped boutique C-130's than most countires have tactical airlifters overall.

really the whole
>the two most powerful air forces in the world are the USAF and the USN
quip hardly captures the disparity in power projection between the US and the rest of the world.';

'>>1993061
They are also the biggest producer of medicine.';

'>>1993102
You have the freedom to travel. Many do not, maybe appreciate what you have hmm?';

'The mutt glowies are really seething hard at China, Blinkey boy's visit was that disastrous';

'>>1991559
did you know japan tried to build their own too but failed?
why china can build commercial jet but japanese can't?
look up mitsubishi spacejet
>development suspended
>As flight testing took longer than expected, the scheduled entry into service was further pushed back until development was first paused amid the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on aviation[2] and subsequently suspended indefinitely.[3]
oh no no no';

'>>1994374
Yeah and? The financial situations for Mitsubishi and Comac are wildly different. Mitsubishi needed their project to have a chance at making profit at some point to make sense at continuing. The Comac project is part of prestige and preparedness for the Chinese state.

There's no doubt that Mitsubishi could have taken their project to the end and produced a good aircraft. But not while keeping it profitable.

I also have no doubt that Comac can produce a working aircraft. This first one certainly won't be turning a profit for them. But it's both a prestige project and preparedness/anti-sanction safeguard for the future. All the tech needed is relatively simple for it, they just need to get the manufacturing together. And while they produce a lot of chink shit the Chinese can also manufacture pretty much anything they want in high quality.';

'I'll fly on anything if it's not boeing';

'>>1994372
>>1994374
>>1994392
>sinoids need shill threads to convince people who hate Boeing to switch from flying Boeing's death traps to their top of the line domestics
Nanshou si le!!!!!!';

'>>1994409
Sorry I don't speak anime';

'The CCP shill replied almost instantly to my post that happened 3hrs after the last bump hahahaha.
You can try to be a little less obvious Zhang, it would help your cause.
Your aircraft will only be sold to third world countries, at a loss, in USD. The world knows what to expect from China and an airplane built to those expectations will never be anything but a total commercial failure.';

'>>1994417
I'm singaporean, senator';

'>>1994417
Sorry but even my normie not online friends are talking about how to avoid flying Boeing';

'>>1994527
Not bothering with US regulations is probably the only reason comac got ahead, really. Look at how many E175-E2s have been sold.';