Talk:Comac ARJ21

Five-Year Plans
What is are the "five year plans"? GregInCanada 03:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Try Five-year plan, and then Five-Year Plan (USSR). The plans in China are based on that developed by the Soviet Union, so that article should explain the basics. That's really all I know, or else I would try to elaborate, but it should give you a start. - BillCJ 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

FAA certification
Some key information about FAA certification would be appropriate, being a critical step for the aircraft to be put into international service. GregInCanada 03:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * i cant really see a international market for this plane. its a refreshed 45 year old design even with new engines just the limited space of where the engines mount i think it will be a loud aircraft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.127.19 (talk • contribs)

Correct Engine Power Listing?
This article lists the engine thrust as 15332 lb. However, the Aviation Week & Space Technology issue for 29 October, 2007, p. 64 lists the engine thrust as 18500 lb. Somebody should make the effort to find the correct rated power for this engine type. Any help would be appreciated. Raymondwinn 10:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Engines
Does anyone know where the engines are being manufactured?72.184.183.175 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It uses CF34-10A engines which are manufactured in America by GE. 82.34.69.170 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a 717
717 was the Boeing name for later MD-90s. But this looks to my eyes more 717 than MD090. 130.76.64.93 (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain what your issue is here. The Boeing 717 (former MD-95) and the MD-90 are both based on the same airframe (DC-9/MD-80 series), the 717 being alot shorter. The ARJ21 is uses the MD-90's tooling, but is about the length of the 717, and thus with a similar MTOW. Therefore it uses engines in the class of the 717 rather than the larger ones of the MD-90, and thus naturally looks more like a 717 than an MD-90. Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1955: Sud Aviation SE 210 Caravelle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud_Aviation_Caravelle


 * 1963: Tupolev Tu-134 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-134
 * Following the introduction of engines mounted on pylons on the rear fuselage by the French Sud Aviation Caravelle, airliner manufacturers around the world rushed to adopt the new layout


 * 1965 : McDonnell Douglas DC-9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-9


 * 2008: ACAC ARJ21 Xiangfeng http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACAC_ARJ21 Johannjs (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right - the ARCJ21 does look like the Caravelle. - BillCJ (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a carbon-copy of the fuselage of the DC-9 and its stretched versions (MD-80, MD-90, MD-95, Boeing 717). To say that it uses same "tooling" is an euphemism. This plane is just a copy of an old Douglas project with new engines and probably updated avionics. How can a false claim that it is "indigenously developed in China" be on Wikipedia? There is plenty of discussion on reusing the old DC-9 design in specialized forums on the internet. --71.235.206.183 (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some time ago the article stated that it is a DC-9 derivative, which it is, with an upgraded wing, new engines and probably some avionics upgrade. Certainly this article is closely guarded by some Chinese sources (as one can notice when reading the text). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.115.28.54 (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Scour the web for images of each from the front. There's some similarities, and then again there's some large differences, for instance the nose forward of the door, the fuselage-wing join, etc. Also the Antonov supercritical wing is completely new. Santamoly (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Total Orders
What's with the inconsistent order totals in the table? If you add up the orders, you get 248, which is what it says in subtotal, but under totals, it gives 208 total orders, which isn't even consistent with the reference it cites. Given this, it seems like the total should be 248, plus 20 options, which also seem to have disappeared. Could someone fix that, please? I'm not good with editing tables, so I'd rather have someone who knows how fix it.C628 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Development
Would it be okay if I put the Comac ARJ21 as developed from the McDonnell Douglas MD-90? --707 (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason not to. Its fuselage is clearly a direct copy. cargocontainer (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see this. It is much shorter than the MD-90 and there is no source to back this up.

--2606:A000:121B:C2D3:A951:4781:5A41:7CB5 (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The source clearly stated that it is only "partially" built on specs from the old MD80. Therefore it is not a direct development from the MD-80 !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:121B:C2D3:28F8:9F96:D0A1:9BA2 (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The ARJ21 is a small jet aircraft that looks very similar to the old MD-80 (which was licensed to be built in China). But COMAC claims that it is an original design, part of which was created by supercomputers in China.

--2606:A000:121B:C2D3:28F8:9F96:D0A1:9BA2 (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course Comarc would claim they designed the aircraft from scratch, for national pride if nothing else, but we don't take their claim for an absolute truth, especially not when there are reliable sources contradicting it. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Tom, I understand your point. However, the title of the source itself is a question. Which makes the source not that strong. Second, the exact word from the source clearly stated that only partial part of the plane was build from the MD-80. Please read the source. At last, I added the other content back with source.

--2606:A000:121B:C2D3:90DF:3E62:7E0:D75E (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comac ARJ21 → COMAC ARJ21 – COMAC should be in all uppercase letters like shown the website here. The company brands COMAC in all uppercase letters --JetBlast (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It does seem that COMAC was originally in uppercase but i am unable to find a discussion regarding this. --JetBlast (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Comac for main discussion. Powers T 15:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Geometrical Determination
The phrase "geometrical determination" (as in a service Antonov provided to the development) is, in American English, a non-standard phrase, at least in my many years of exposure to aviation development. It reminds me of reading English translations of Russian texts. The words are proper English but the meaning and intent are often unclear. In this case, it comes across as somebody from Antonov said, "Yes, that's the shape of an airplane" or "Yes, the actual dimensions of the airplane match the numbers on the blueprints." Can we have a better description of what this phrase is trying to communicate? HatCat (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ARJ21 Wing Damage
"...ARJ21's wing became damaged during static testing..."

This statement sounds a bit disingenuous. It makes it sound like there was a mishap (for instance, a dropped tool) that somehow damaged the wing. In fact, the wing failed below specification during an "ultimate load test" designed to prove the strength of the wing. See Aviation Week & Space Technology, 2011/09/12, "Plan For China C919 Airliner Hits A Snag" (online at AW&ST website). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HatCat (talk • contribs) 20:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/arj21/index.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

New orders
Could someone please update the orders ? Redalert2fan (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comac ARJ21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007000957/http://www.avbuyer.com.cn/e/2008/22420.html to http://www.avbuyer.com.cn/e/2008/22420.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713064343/http://www.acac.com.cn/site_en/product.asp to http://www.acac.com.cn/site_en/product.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comac ARJ21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110005953/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-06/01/content_4631760.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-06/01/content_4631760.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.aircraftpilots.com/threads/pictures-comac-arj21-undergoes-water-ingestion-tests.41318/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209031739/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-06/01/content_4631760.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-06/01/content_4631760.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/china-lays-plans-for-arj21-900/?no_cache=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Source of truth for orders
The article mentions that there's an official CAAC list of orders, would anybody have a pointer? Jpatokal (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Comac being a derivative
I have tried to verify the claims of the airplane being a derivative of the MD-90, but the sources used in the article are merely speculative. Given the lack of reliable sources that directly state that it was a copy, and that the sources in the article don't claim that, I've gone ahead and removed it from templates and infoboxes, as this is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE, where the prominence of the assertion isn't matched by the strength of evidence. Does anyone have any actual sourcing for this? At this point, even the citations in the article doesn't even verify, so I'm not sure that keeping the allegations later in the text even meets guidelines Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  06:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)