Comments by "alex Lo" (@alexlo7708) on "Simple Flying" channel.

  1. Yes , they will have good future, PD35 can power to both re-engine Il-96 or the newest CR929 at one time.
    6
  2. Smaller plane has quicker response than a big one.
    5
  3.  @mp4986  Engine testing start on the bench test. Then install on flying testbed and start high altitude test. Both of them has all these process. Russian is the first who went to space. Before the US!
    3
  4. No, they have their own big market to support their own program.
    2
  5. Those aren't compete to 717. They're 2+2 row not 3+2 as 717.
    2
  6. Its mostly Russian tech. Very different.
    2
  7.  @alexandernorman5337  Aluminium has density 2.7 g/cm3 while composite is average between silicon and polymer density. It isn't lighter to the point of significant order as promoted. Vital factor that decides efficiency of the plane is engine. Had you installed a pair of GE CF90 on oldie 747 It'd have flied while zipping fuel as thin as 777 also.
    2
  8.  @alexandernorman5337  The smaller the plane, the less different weight among Al and composite. That's why Japan MRJ gave up its composite body and went Aluminium before project is disrupted. When viewing single aisle such 737 320 919 ,It goes the same. So the different between structure materials will show signified index when the plane go bigger wide body. Thats why China wide body C929 made to all body composite.
    2
  9.  @jonervine  No one took side in business , man. It's benefit that decide. Go out of your politic when doing business. That's principle of success merchants.
    2
  10. It's equivalent to A340-500. I suggest them to add in a middle row overhead bin like western aircraft have for wide body airplane.
    2
  11. It's more reliable than PW geared turbofan that caused Bombadier many problems.
    2
  12.  @dy7296  Actually the present CF34 is not the same old CF34. GE took CFM56 and build it to present CF34 instead.
    2
  13. Not only favorable price. Cost of operation and maintenance also be calculated. And when you can find those parts in China. Its more effective and economics operating.
    2
  14. It because small engine tech has proven enough in fuel efficiency as large turbofan engine. Consider A340 was lost to 777 when flying long range.
    2
  15. This news seems to air false information. Even old model Tu214 can fly longer than this news quoted, why MC21 that is the newest tech model, couldn't do.
    2
  16. They're all body composite but 929 has wider cabin.
    2
  17. Or a new MAX.
    2
  18.  @GintaPPE1000  If you pay 91 million for A220, at least 60 million will be gross profit margin.
    2
  19. There are some news RollsRoys is one who provide the engine to this project. Russia PD35 engine has no certainty and nothing news come out. No US engine propose to this project even they got a welcome. If China back out ,they will likely do it themself. And Russian might resurrect it's Ilyushin Il-96 to be reengined.
    2
  20.  @farhanatashiga3721  It Russian- China project alone. No western sphere suppliers colluded. On this project, the PD-35 engine is the fastest progress. There're news complete engine have already on testing stand. The most tedious work in big new design airplane are engine and avionics. Complete testing body 1st plane for static test have been already in Shanghai plant.
    2
  21. When you start threathen someone with your product, it means a new producer has emerged.
    1
  22. GE and PW use same smelter in casting their engine parts. Generally US govt who manages both behind the scene has already provided them sharing sectors. PW receives favor in military sector while GE are aimed at civil business. Only some overlap in market in presenting fake competition. And this comes the natural instinct to their engine products. PW engine always put forward to the edge on its performance ,thats why they're prone to failure of engine when their new model comming out. While GE focus on conservative compromise to any new tech availble.
    1
  23. If you're banned or sanction by US ,you might love it.
    1
  24. Blame on the pilots has always been Boeing tactic in murder.
    1
  25. I remember 737MAX got it.
    1
  26.  @fartingfury  Western suppliers were told by its mastermind to separate from 929. So the 929 tech will be all Russian and Chinese. RollsRoyce might have some on its engine.
    1
  27. If you're in hurried, 737 MAX is the answer.
    1
  28. No any accident.
    1
  29.  @LukewarmFoxxo  Same as A340-300 which it uses CFM-56 engines.
    1
  30. Why not 737 MAX winglet?
    1
  31. They have bigger market, right?
    1
  32. Russian turboprop always fly across ocean. It's Tu-95.
    1
  33. Its a copy of E190. No future.
    1
  34.  @mp4986  Chernobyl is Ukraine job, not Russian. My sarcasm also. I don't agree on your bias of failure covered up. What we already see is 737MAX. That is exactly US covered up( both corporate and regulator cover up scheme) and blamed it on the dead pilots. Very shameful.
    1
  35.  @mp4986  I don't see any cover up by the Russian. You raise example of Apllo1. Russian also had it's space failure and astronaut dead. They aired it on their TV even held the grand funeral for those astronauts. It was western news who weren't interested themself. By the way. I still insist it isn't US regulator incompetence. But they colluded with the company in covered up the flaw. Had they sincere on their duty, the 1st who imposed on grounding the plane wouldn't have been China but the US. And you knew it , who really was. Blaming on those dead pilots has always been tactic of the company.
    1
  36.  @mp4986  It might secret to the western but not their own domestic public.
    1
  37.  @ilovecops6255  JT9 is the same era of GE CF-6. If still being used, one may find it on those flying logistic airlines.
    1
  38.  @slavkovalsky1671  Also many American test pilots died on flying but known to no one. The test range become covered up by UFO story. Blame game always blame games.
    1
  39. So it's no different from those old A300.
    1
  40. No, it's cabin is wider than 787. As width as 350. 787 is so crumpy, that's why Boeing claim it's fuel efficient. The same design tactic as A220. Narrow body to less drag.
    1
  41. Because Boeing had compete with it predecessor " McDonell Douglas". So it stay on competing.
    1
  42. I don't think so. I would prefer this plane had they offering me comfortably spacious seat than those western crumpy economic seat canning plane.
    1
  43. Resurrect of 90 prop fan.
    1
  44. Put fan at it extremist torque speed. Given PW example, gear can hold on but shaft could not. So it bent.
    1
  45. If I am airline owner in China , I will exactly buy them because we don't know whether another Trump may use its airplane products as a trade weapon. So in view of China, US planes are unreliable products comes with low credibility in term of doing business.
    1
  46. If only word "technology" made you pay more , I must reconsider it. For example F35 boast high tech plane so you have to pay more. But I do business , passenger needs is seat and timely schedule. How can they sell more high buck ticket just by telling customer that is up because plane wing is carbon.
    1
  47.  @magical_catgirl  I think they used different polymer chemical in binding carbon fibre. The American might have their specialty formula given that this polymer resin are all bought from the US by both Airbus or Boeing.
    1
  48.  @canoozie  Carbon fibre parts on Yacht or cars also has ageing when exposed to extreme sunlight. But is does not fast enough like this.
    1
  49. Seems like that. Russia want to save money. So they have plan to reengine the old model. Practicing on this way. It has no future.
    1
  50. It's not appropriate saying that. Better say tech sharing like Airbus in Europe. What is the main focus is distributing of suppliers. Not to keep it yourself and doing it all.
    1