MS-21 vs. Comac C919: opinion of specialists
Author's articles
MS-21 vs. Comac C919: opinion of specialists

MS-21 vs. Comac C919: opinion of specialists


The passenger airliner MS-21, developed by Russian scientists and designers, is one of the most promising on the territory of the Russian Federation in the last quarter of a century, facilitated by the fact that this aircraft, which is scheduled to be launched in 2019 year, can compete openly with aircraft , produced by such large world aircraft manufacturers as "Airbus" and "Boeing".



Nevertheless, independent experts questioned the fact that Russian airliners will be able to gain the proper popularity, which is very enthusiastically told by the creators of this aircraft. This doubt is mainly due to the fact that the plane is similar to the MS-21, it was also introduced in China, in particular, it is a model of the Comac C919, which is inferior to the Russian aircraft in a number of parameters, but by some characteristics, it greatly exceeds.

The advantage of the Russian passenger airliner MS-21 in front of the Chinese Comac C919 is, of course, its ability to work on short- and medium-range routes, according to the information provided by the aircraft developers in a two-class configuration, the maximum flight range of this aircraft is 6400 kilometers, which is quite acceptable for most air operators. The Chinese airliner Comac C919 can fly only at distances of up to 4075 kilometers, which is not suitable for linking the same China and European cities. Nevertheless, on this, the advantages of the domestic aircraft MS-21 in front of the Chinese aircraft Comac C919 end, while the aircraft manufacturers from the PRC took a very responsible approach to the implementation of their project.



What are the advantages of the Chinese passenger Comac C919, initially, we should pay attention to the fact that in the two-class configuration, on board the passenger airliner Comac C919 can accommodate up to 156 people, while the salon of the Russian aircraft MS-21 allows to place on board only 132 rights, which is almost 15% less.

According to some, officially not confirmed data, in comparison with the Russian passenger liner, the Chinese aircraft has less fuel consumption, which makes its subsequent use more efficient, which definitely can affect the popularity of the aircraft.



Despite the fact that domestic aircraft manufacturers claim that the MS-21 passenger airliner can already be considered a successful and popular project, in reality, despite an almost similar stage of testing, Russian manufacturers have an order for the production of 185 aircraft (“hard” orders for data for mid-2017 - author's note), while the Chinese aircraft manufacturers, back in November 2015 had 517 "firm" orders for the production of these aircraft, which in turn indicates a much greater chance of becoming a real competitor to "Airbus "And" Boeing ".

When developing the MS-21 aircraft, Russian aircraft designers were oriented not only to the creation of a high-quality and reliable aircraft, but also sought to minimize the cost of this airliner, resulting in the cost of the aircraft, according to 2017 year, was about 90 million dollars, while the nearest competitor from "Airbus", the cost is about 100 million dollars, and on the part of "Boeing" - 98 million dollars. Nevertheless, much more success was achieved by Chinese aircraft manufacturers, as indicated by the fact that the cost of the Comac C919 liner is about 50-55 million dollars.



Given this fact, it is logical to say that the project of the Chinese passenger liner Comac C919 is much more likely to compete with the aircraft "Airbus" and "Boeing" than the Russian aircraft MS-21, while it is possible that even Russian air carriers will make a choice in favor of Chinese aircraft capable of carrying more people on board, at a cost almost half that of domestic-made aircraft.

Experts do not exclude that much greater success for Russian aircraft will be brought by the expanded versions, capable of carrying out flights to longer distances and transporting more people, however, it is important to take into account the fact that aircraft building in China is also very actively developing.


Kostyuchenko Yuriy specifically for

Very incorrect data.
1) The MC-21 basic bid was made on the MC-21 (300) configuration, which accounts for the bulk of orders. Passenger capacity is 163 passenger. At the same time, the largest configuration of the Chinese liner is the passenger's 174. But the bet on this configuration has not been made and it has not even been tested. .. and it is not yet known whether it will even be put into production plans.
2) With the number of firm orders, you must again take into account that on 95% of all orders, these are domestic Chinese companies that are subsidized by the state as part of the state program to increase domestic flights.
By the way, there is such a price from 55 million (basic equipment (156 passengers). MS-21 price to 95 million, this is just the MS-21 price (300). Airbus and Boeing competitors with similar capacity (163 passenger ) is 110-115 million, respectively.
3) Cost-effectiveness depends on the engines used. The plans for the MC-21 (300) put a new PD-14, which brings the Chinese advantage to nothing. In addition, about the profitability of the Chinese is still a very controversial point because so far the official data on it has not been published.

You all forget that 919 is a copy of A320,
and MC-21 is a new development.

The first thing to think about is service and maintenance, quickly and anywhere in the world.
SSJ100 Aeroflot in 2015 flew an average of one hour per day, Gazprom Avia liners - for 20-25 minutes. For comparison: the average flight time of Boeing 737 is 13-15 hours per day, says a source in the company-operator.

The author completely misses the issue of national security. This is the first thing we and the Chinese have to think about. Their Boeings and Airbuses are easy to land on the ground if something happens. What are we going to do then? An example with "An" and Ukraine before my eyes.

And MS-21 is easy not to let even take off the sanctions ...

I agree. With all of China's economic successes, it lags behind in high-tech areas. And in the aircraft industry, including: Judge for yourself: what strategic aviation do they have? That's right: Tu 16. Airplane 5 generation test? Correctly - bluff it ... Cars? There is only one truck HOWO to remember - constantly without brakes fly. Similarly, with passenger air transport: by air: as always a beautiful picture, which in reality turns out to be a pile

I do not quite understand the comparison logic of the younger MS-21-200 model with the base version of C919. It's not correct to compare A319 and B737-800, they have different capacities. The fact is that it is obvious from open sources that the analog of the basic version of the Chinese is MS-21-300, and in a two-class layout, the 163 Russian (16 + 147) versus 156 (12 + 144). I'm not special in financial matters, but I still need to see what's on the 50 lyams bucks the Chinese are riveted)

The best advertising should be flying daily on board and for dry it is scanty.

In dry, it is normal for its class. The same Azimuth calmly do 8 hours a day. It is incorrect to compare 320/737 with SSJ since the range is different.

I wonder who is the strong customer of 919?
That's right, Chinese companies. Success?
No, most likely recycling, which is absolutely correct. But China will not go further than China and China dependent (Africa)

and who is the customer MC-21 was already as much as 185 boards?

The basic version of the plane is MS-21-300 and its capacity is 163 (For the time being there is no MC-21-200 capacity 132).
The engines on both the first and second aircraft are the same ones that are installed on Airbus and Boeing, so there can be no question of inefficient fuel consumption.
By orders and so it is. But if you remember the Tu-154 they are produced around 920 pieces (150 for export). So first you need to secure yourself then for export.
It seems to me that if the plane costs almost 2 times less than competitors, or something is wrong with it, or it's just a bluff, or this car will never pay off