Wikipedia

Talk:Comac C919/Archive 1

< Talk:Comac C919
Latest comment: 4 years ago by MarkofGiles in topic Strange wording: recenses
Archive 1

Comac capitalisation

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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)

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#Vote_on_flag_removal

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Target

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Comac C919. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Comac C919. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Image

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Now that Comac's actually built the plane, we need an image of the actual thing, not just a model. 1618033goldenc0ntr1b5 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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"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)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wing composition error

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

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)


ICAO type code

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Strange wording: recenses

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As of 31 August 2018, FlightGlobal recenses 305 orders

I have a problem understanding the verb "recenses" and I wonder if it is meant to be something different?

MarkofGiles (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comac_C919/Archive_1&oldid=1249769006"