China to start making 90-seat jets. High-quality, I'm sure.

[Manedwolf]

Not surprisingly, it looks just like a copy of a Bombardier CRJ series.



I'll pass on riding on those, thanks.

China's first home-made jet flies

China successfully flight tested its first home-grown commercial airliner.

The ARJ-21's maiden flight lasted one hour and the aircraft did not rise above 900 metres in altitude due to safety reasons.

The 90-seat jet flew out of a local Shanghai airport and its manufacturer expects it to fly distances up to 3,700km.

Each jet will cost $27m (£22.6m) and first deliveries are expected to take place within 18 months.

Secured Orders

The plane is being manufactured in Shanghai.

The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China say they have secured over 200 orders and last month gained five firm orders from GE Commercial Aviation Services who have an option for a further 20 jets.

It's general manager Jin Zhuanglong said: "With less fuel consumption and longer flight hours, the ARJ-21 will reduce air fares by 8% to 10% for Chinese airlines, most of whom currently use large aircraft above 140 seats on short and medium routes."

One of the three pilots on board, Zhao Peng, said "The jet was normal and the flight was smooth."

The jet will face competition from international manufacturers such as Bombardier, Embraer, Airbus and Boeing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7755377.stm

Did GE move entirely to China, now, or are they still too busy selling parts to Iran?

[freedom lover]

China's first home-made civilian jet flies.

There. Fixed it for the government-run BBC.

[Tallpine]

Did GE move entirely to China, now, or are they still too busy selling parts to Iran?

GE is supplying some parts for the new Boeing 787. 

the aircraft did not rise above 900 metres in altitude

Probably because of all the lead in it.   

[Don't care]

Probably got the venture capital from the trade deficit the U.S. keeps with China.

Or it that just another bailout?

[280plus]

The ARJ-21's maiden flight lasted one hour and the aircraft did not rise above 900 metres in altitude due to safety reasons.

So crashing from 900 meters is safer than crashing from 15,000? 

[Tallpine]

I wonder if the Chinese built their own engines

What they probably did was buy one American turbojet and take it apart and reverse engineer (pirate) it.  They might even do the same thing with the maintenance software that I developed ... 

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

It does look very similar to the CRJ...
But then, the Tupolev Tu-154 looks like a 727.

[mfree]

I'm not saying they *weren't* copied, but think of this... you want to carry 90 passengers, there's a fuselage arrangement that's most efficient for the job. With that fuselage, and the range required, there's a wing profile, span, and sweep that's most efficient. There are horizontal and vertical stab arrangement and sizes that keep an efficiency window, as well as engine thrust and placement, and with engine thrust requirements come engines of a particular type and size.

It's really not surprising at all that two aircraft intended to do the same job could end up looking very, very close to each other. To the untrained eye, it's like cars; four wheels, four seats, four doors, engine up front to absorb impact and driving the fronts to save space. Trunk in the back 'cause that's the last place to put it. Aero shape: Voila, the modern "jellybean" car. If you didn't see them every hour of every day you might have a time telling some apart, too.

[Manedwolf]

I'm not saying they *weren't* copied, but think of this... you want to carry 90 passengers, there's a fuselage arrangement that's most efficient for the job. With that fuselage, and the range required, there's a wing profile, span, and sweep that's most efficient. There are horizontal and vertical stab arrangement and sizes that keep an efficiency window, as well as engine thrust and placement, and with engine thrust requirements come engines of a particular type and size.

It's really not surprising at all that two aircraft intended to do the same job could end up looking very, very close to each other. To the untrained eye, it's like cars; four wheels, four seats, four doors, engine up front to absorb impact and driving the fronts to save space. Trunk in the back 'cause that's the last place to put it. Aero shape: Voila, the modern "jellybean" car. If you didn't see them every hour of every day you might have a time telling some apart, too.

Toyota Land Cruiser:


Chinese ripoff copy:


Nissa X-Tera:


Chinese ripoff copy:


Mercedes C-LK:


Chinese rip-off copy:


China does NOT innovate. They reverse-engineer, outright pirate and steal, and produce inferior copies.

[mfree]

I'm not saying they *weren't* copied,

[Gewehr98]

Yup. Like nobody reverse-engineers technology from other countries. 

It's cheaper to do so vs. investing one's own R&D, regardless of the color of that money.

You want the best bang for the buck, let somebody else do the footwork.  Or you can spend a bunch more money overcoming one's ethical and moral hangups and re-invent the wheel.

Google Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson, known as FTD.  They've sinced renamed themselves NASIC.

[Firethorn]

China does NOT innovate. They reverse-engineer, outright pirate and steal, and produce inferior copies.

Careful, because that's exactly how Japan started out.

[Gewehr98]

And the Detroit Big 3 reverse-engineer Jap cars now, too.

It's come full-circle.

[280plus]

Careful, because that's exactly how Japan started out.

No sir, Japan started out with a guy in a rubber Godzilla suit trashing Tokyo 

 

[Gewehr98]

Gozirra! 

[Manedwolf]

This was posted as a comment on another industry thing about this. From what I've heard from several people who work with parts subcontracting, it's pretty dead on.

When I co-oped at a large, East Hartford based aerospace firm, just about every engineering meeting was "why can't XYZ be outsourced to China?". Oh, and dealing with Chinese vendor issues.

There were three things I learned there about manufacturing:

1) The Japanese will get it perfect, period. First article inspections were a formality with them.

2) The Russians will, if prodded, turn out amazing things, in a facility that's jaw droppingly obsolete and worn out. To quote one engineer "The Russians have the best machinists, period"

3) The Chinese couldn't even drill a hole right, and were constantly trying to counterfit whatever parts they could.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Careful, because that's exactly how Japan started out.

very true  the first japanese train locomotive was exactly scaled up from commodore perry's gift to the emperor

[Gewehr98]

Care to open the case of that Mac you're posting from and count the number of Chinese parts within? 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

owww  thats gonna leave a mark!

[Manedwolf]

Care to open the case of that Mac you're posting from and count the number of Chinese parts within? 

I would if it was one of the entire run of MacBooks that they completely #$%!-ed up that had white bars across the screen and flawed logic boards due to lousy QC.

I know Apple has factories in China. I think it's stupid of them, but I think they've learned to keep a CLOSE eye on things and not subcontract assemblies.

From other people in fabrication, I've heard there's two possible most likely outcomes of subcontracting subassemblies to Chinese shops.

1. The first sample/first box is the right alloy or done right. The other 9,999 boxes are cheaper metal.
2. They keep or copy the tooling and keep producing your product without you.

Apple will either keep a closer eye on things, or keep eating bad production runs and risking their quality reputation. That's up to them.


No, this isn't an iPod. The case is 1:1 for a Nano, though. Nor does the maker have anything to do with Nokia. Double happy steal time!

And this phone...they even stole the old "think different" SLOGAN!

[Gewehr98]

So what you're saying is, the Chinese make junk, unless it's an iProduct. 

Then it's ok, because Apple's QC will save us from the junky side of Chinese manufactured goods.

Alrighty then...

[Manedwolf]

So what you're saying is, the Chinese make junk, unless it's an iProduct. 

Then it's ok, because Apple's QC will save us from the junky side of Chinese manufactured goods.

Alrighty then...

Nope. Just that the normal OP for contractors there seems to be to cut as many corners as possible if they think they won't get caught.

Apple HAS gotten burned by that. They chose to risk the shoddy manufacturing, and some shoddy runs of Apple products have come out. I just wonder where the break-even point is, where it costs more to have a directly company employed QC person check every single article than it does to just move the manufacturing to another place that's not stuck between 50+ years of communist corruption and absolutely anarchistic capitalism, where anything goes, there's no accountability or respect for intellectual property.

[thebaldguy]

I remember reading a Business Week a few years ago where the feature story was counterfeit products from China. They had everything from software to gulf clubs to motorcycles. During the day, they would make products for the parent company; at night they would crank out counterfeit products and sell them as the real thing. Companies were furious, and there was little they could do.

I'm not sold on some Chinese quality/safety just yet. I remember seeing a recall of Chinese tires in the last year or so. They were very defective, but the company who made them said they couldn't afford a recall or compensation to victims. You were basically screwed for damages caused by a bad product. Gold dental crowns containing lead (and some toys/trinkets) and tainted food products are a few more examples. I still shop at Asian markets, but I don't buy any food products from China after seeing the news.

I must admit that they do sometimes punish company "wrongdoers" pretty good. I don't think that prison/capital punishment has really improved the quality/safety of their products much. 

I'm not sure I would trust Chinese aircraft yet. If you die in a crash caused by a defective Chinese plane, good luck with a lawsuit.

[Boomhauer]

I'm not sure I would trust Chinese aircraft yet. If you die in a crash caused by a defective Chinese plane, good luck with a lawsuit.

The new Cessna Light Sport aircraft, the Cessna 162 "Skycatcher" is being made in China.

Let's just say buyers that put down deposits before that announcement was made are none too pleased.

[Gewehr98]

I dunno.

I cannot enthusiastically jump on the bandwagon and say all Chinese products are the spawn of the devil. That would be a cop-out, and a blatant lie.

Too many products in my own home are made there, and haven't given me a lick of trouble.  Quite honestly, short of living an Amish-style existence, it would be damned difficult to function without Chinese products in the year 2008.

http://www.tormach.com/

See above. Tormach is a small company in Waunakee, just a stone's throw from me. I've met these people, including the business owner, and talked to folks who own their products.  I'm seriously considering buying one of their CNC lathes. The circuit cards are made here in the States, but the machines themselves are made in China.  The owner set up operations over there, and maintains a presence several weeks out of each month.  I'm sure he did it for the same reasons other companies outsource work - China is the cheap-labor-of-the-week country. 

I've already got a bunch of Korean electronics in my house, and even some Malaysian.  Even the Japanese are getting away from televisions and video recording devices, because like the Americans, they've priced their own labor out of the market.