Talk:Comac C919

First Maiden voyage

It’s first flight May 27th 2023, it flew from Shanghai to Beijing. Source from Flightradar24. 173.214.158.63 (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Comac c919 engine

copied from User talk:Mjroots

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reference don't support the text, which states "CFM supplied CFM56 engines". Sayanpdd (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sayanpdd: isn't the LEAP engine a development of the CFM56? Which particular reference in the Comac C919 article do you mean? Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

i send you references articles which are attached with the misleading part, I read the full article ,no where the article mentions that Comac c919 use rebadged CFM-56 engines. Sayanpdd (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the LEAP engine is the successor to the CFM56,but the text mentioned that CFM supplied Comac with rebadged CFM-56 is misleading. yes, leap-c version is more heavy ,but components are identical with other leap engines and it's more matched with leap-A.Also the reference does not match the misleading text.

Reference that is used:-

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2022/09/20/china-comac-c919-boeing-airbus/

https://web.archive.org/web/20181013014334/https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA%20E110%20TCDS%20Issue%207%20LEAP-1A-1C.pdf

Sayanpdd (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sayanpdd: - I claim no "ownership" of the article. If you think that a correction needs to be made, be bold and make it, using your source to reference the correction. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The section, which I am taking about need to be deleted , what reference I should add when it is misleading.

Lastly, you should undo the revision you did on my edit on Comac 919 article. Sayanpdd (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sayanpdd: Apologies, I've just realised what this is about. I'll copy this conversation over to the talk page of the aircraft article, and ping others involved. Hopefully we can get consensus on this. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The above conversation refers to this revert of mine of an edit by Sayanpdd. Rosbif73 also reverted Sayanpdd's original edit. Rosbif, do you agree that Sayanpdd's source backs his claim? Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Forbes reference mentions one analyst, Richard Aboulafia, who "suspects [the LEAP-1C] actually an upgraded version of the older CFM56" rather than a true LEAP variant – which is a bit on the light side for the WP:WEASELly "Experts believe". The EASA TCDS confirms that the -1C is approx 25% heavier than the -1A, but the leap from that data point to the claim in the text is pure WP:OR. So, while I initially reverted what was at the time an unexplained removal of sourced text, the removal does now seem perfectly reasonable. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m deleting this line due to the incorrect personal analyse and opinion of the original LEAP-1A/C EASA TCDS. The sheet perfectly shows that the weight of a LEAP-1C engine, compared to the -1A, quote “Without fluids (oil, fuel), including thrust reverser”, which makes the comparison of the dry wet between two engines impossible. The original comment of the editor is strongly irresponsible and personal. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hit piece

That's what this article reads like. I for one would like more technical details and less tabloid bullshit on this Western propaganda machine "encyclopaedia". 37.188.174.131 (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about where this reads like a "hit piece"? All I see is one short, neutrally worded section on espionnage allegations, which is not giving undue weight.

And if you have reliably sourced technical details that aren't currently included, feel free to edit the article yourself (or provide links to your sources). Rosbif73 (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

How did this get in

The five-month delay between first and second flights, while the second prototype was being ground-tested, was extraordinary: in 2013 the Airbus A350 flew again after five days and in 2015 the troubled Mitsubishi MRJ flew again after eight days.

That part about the "Mitsubishi MRJ" doesn't seem to make sense to me, am I missing something? 2001:871:24D:34D:9112:5CBC:2D4F:B233 (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

An accurate supplier list

There's been a few replacements on several products of the supplier list (mostly from western company products to Chinese local products).

Please do not delete or replace them, instead, please put the newly certified products underneath and mark them as "Optional".

Also the product should be certified or presently installed on the aircraft to be on the supplier list, not theories, thoughts or plans. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)