Talk:Comac C919/Archive 1

Comac capitalisation
The company name Comac is sometimes capitalised, however the majority of the mainstream media is only captitalising the first letter, with the rest in lower case. This is like Qantas, which is also an acronym. Because the word can be spoken, it should be left mainly in lower-caae.-- Lester  14:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

C919 as spearhead of Chinese aircraft and systems development
The Wall Street Journal's report abour General Electric's deal with COMAC's parent to codevelop avionics is significant. For the Chinese it means entry onto world jetliner markets (including Boeing and airbus domains) and for GE it means a strategic alliance with a Chinese government backed enterprrise that GE feels will give it access to new markets it would not win on its own. This is why the section on GE's joint venture was added in the main article text. Articles about airliners cheat readers of value if they are only about the aluminim tube and wings.76.216.60.30 (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your table about who makes what component omits a critical one, who makes the wings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.53.217 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Orders
This page should have a independent page for orders, as other aircraft pages has. There are future orders, just around the corner, ex. from Air China

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-03/air-china-says-it-will-absolutely-support-domestic-planemaker.html

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-02/china-s-comac-seeks-100-c919-plane-orders-by-year-end-update2-.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.19.197 (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

First Flight?
For many years, its been saying first flight in 2014, EIS in 2016, but suddenly, its first flight November 22, 2011, and EIS 2013! any sources?Jianqing01 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Jianqing01

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 C919 → COMAC C919 – COMAC should be in all uppercase letters like shown the website here. The company brands COMAC in all uppercase letters JetBlast (talk) 10:21, 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 15:46, 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.

Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100
This (inofficial) voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. Tagremover (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Target
This section has issues.

"Airbus is not targeted as the "cheapest", and Boeing doesn't have to fight too much with that." What does this even mean? That Boeing doesn't have to try hard to undercut Airbus? If so, this clause doesn't really add anything to the first sentence at all because you can deduce this by reading on. PaulBoddie (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Commercial Future (in due time)
The article already states that the commercial future might not be as bright. There is some (maybe a lot) truth in it. Even though the price-tag might be nice, compared to A320 and B737, there's still one very big issue that will also haunt the russian MS-21 and probably the Suchoi Super Jet. It's the servicing and RMO (Repair, Maintenance and Overhaul). COMAC and all "newcomers" will have to build up a global service and supply network. Otherwise major airlines will not lay hands on these planes. That takes time and a lot of money. That said... one must also say, that it's been done before... by Airbus. Although one must add that Airbus had through it's predecessors (Aérospatiale, Fokker-VFW, Messerschmidt, Dornier, CASA, parts of the old BAe) a very good kickstart. Embraer also did it, although on an much smaller scale. In the end I guess the Russians and the Chinese will get their respective market share, even in "the west", but they need to prove themselves first in their domestic markets and through smaller airlines. But in due time. --78.53.6.141 (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Flight speed
Mach 0.785 900 kilometres (560 mi) (extended range) - I don't think the Mach and the km/h or m/h match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.24 (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Comac C919. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121205191935/http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=C919 to http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=C919
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101119092632/http://www.flightglobal.com:80/blogs/flightblogger/2010/11/comac-plans-six-models-for-its.html? to http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/11/comac-plans-six-models-for-its.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121112105352/http://airlineberg.com:80/2012/05/19/airlineberg-analysis-comac-c919-against-airbus-and-boeing-duopoly/ to http://airlineberg.com/2012/05/19/airlineberg-analysis-comac-c919-against-airbus-and-boeing-duopoly/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121101201441/http://english.comac.cc:80/home/photo/201209/29/t20120929_584635.shtml to http://english.comac.cc/home/photo/201209/29/t20120929_584635.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Comac C919. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121205191935/http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=C919 to http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=C919
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121101201441/http://english.comac.cc:80/home/photo/201209/29/t20120929_584635.shtml to http://english.comac.cc/home/photo/201209/29/t20120929_584635.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Image
Now that Comac's actually built the plane, we need an image of the actual thing, not just a model. 1618033  golden   c0ntr1b5 21:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You are free to replace the image with one of the real aircraft as long as it is in the public domain or has an acceptable licence. MilborneOne (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

prefer english references
Many references were in mandarin. I replaced them with reliable english sources. Please prefer english references unless nothing else is available : WP:RSUE: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Collaborative partners
Why has any mentions of the partnership with Bombardier Aerospace been removed from this article? I remember seeing that info in this article a few years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.162.22 (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can search in the article history. I've reviewed every first version of each year without finding any reference to this. But references are easy to find, I've added a Flight Global 2013 article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Capacity
The first section says the name comes from it's number of passengers 190 but in the specs it only has 168 seats. Pepe.is.great (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 190 is the capacity (as in maximum), 168 a normal pax layout.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Awkward wording
"the last two number "19" means its maximum capacity is 190" To me, this sentence makes little sense. I'd suggest changing it to "the last two digits, "19", mean its maximum capacity is 190". What's your opinion? Especially on the commas?--Adûnâi (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think "the last two number "19" means its maximum capacity is 190" makes any sense either. Bulbbulb29054 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone still have any opinion on this? Bulbbulb29054 (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Comac C919. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/c919-project-at-crucial-point-in-detailed-design-comac-365281/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131201090859/http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/prices/ to http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/prices/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/icbc-leasing-orders-45-c919s-becomes-launch-customer-363664/
 * Added tag to http://www.dfdaily.com/html/113/2012/11/13/893510.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621085850/http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/70829/793201357.pdf to http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/70829/793201357.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comac C919. 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/20131212224102/http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryanair-and-comac-commercial-aircraft-corp-of-china-sign-c-919-mou-in-paris to http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryanair-and-comac-commercial-aircraft-corp-of-china-sign-c-919-mou-in-paris
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/11/comac-plans-six-models-for-its.html

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) 20:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wing composition error
This seems to be a simple typo error: "Aluminium-lithium alloys account for 8.8% of the structure and composite materials for 12%." I assume, but have not researched the matter, that "8.8%" should be 88%. If anyone can reasonably verify that 88% is accurate please correct the sentence. (But my sense is that 8.8% is certainly not correct - I feel essentially certain the wing is composed of far more aluminum alloy than that.) --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an error and at least it matches the source. This source also confirms the proportion, although it might just be parroting the company's press release. Notice that "Aluminium-lithium alloys" is different from just "Aluminium". I'm sure that the wing features a lot more of the latter, but the former is highlighted because (along with composites) it is considered an advanced material.No longer a penguin (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No longer a penguin is right.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you No longer a penguin and Marc Lacoste - I stand corrected! --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Jumbo jet
The Chinese English-language sources so call the C919 a "jumbo jet". However, as a single-isle airliner with less than 200 seats, it's not what is considerdered a ""jumbo jet" in Standard English (747-size and above.) While I agree that it should not be included in the Lead sentence, we shpould probably it make clear somewhere, prehaps with a footnote, that the Chinese do use the term for the C919. A source that explains this would be ideal. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed it from the lead but you are right it appears the Chinese called it a Jumbo jet, or perhaps it has been lost or changed during translation!. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Lot of hits on google for C919 Jumbo Jet so I presume it has come from a press release or press agency. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, if there's one thing I've learned over the years from dealing with Mainland Chinese people, it's their frequent misconception and misinterpretation of certain English words when translating from Mandarin to English language; that said, frequent spelling errors are also commonly expected. For the record, I went to China once and I would always switched TV channels whenever I came across the China Central Television's English news service in the hotel room, my China friend asked me why I do that for and my reply was: "the standard of English still needs much improvement", she smiled after that... I think she knew what I meant. --Dave1185 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I figured as much! LOL at "Smorking"! My sister has similar stories from her 2 years in Beijing as a teacher. To be fair, words often hae different or even opposite meanings in many varieties of English. I lived in the Caribbean as a child, and while perhaps less common, it is interesting to see the local meaning of English words there. Same with British and American English differences. - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Or with Australian English, sometimes called Strine. When it comes to two different languages you can even make costly mistakes. When shares were offered in a local radio station, me, fresh from Germany, translated it in my head and imagined shares as in publicly traded on the stock exchange. In German we have two different words for shares, depending what it is, publicly listed is one word, simple business type partnership shares is a completely different word. I had to consider that an oversight some years later. You just have to put your glasses on when you move between cultures and languages. 2001:8003:A928:800:7CBB:1297:846F:207F (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Quite right... take a good look at Armour & Armor; or Neighbour & Neighbor. But the word "Smorking" was really really atrocious! And the first thing that came to my mind was, Smoke + Pork. Hahaha... go figure that one out! (PS: Try this other one for laughs!) --Dave1185 (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought of smoking through a snorkel! - BilCat (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I promise this will be the last one... the other one that came to mind was Smock! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ICAO type code
Does this plane have an ICAO type code yet? Like 738 for the Boeing 737-800 or DH8 for the deHaveiland Canada Dash 8 Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * C919--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Please add it to the article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter, it isn't in airline service.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)