News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get it in the air. Parent comment

Re:Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get... by throwup238 on Saturday January 06, 2024 @12:15AM (#38888636)
From Wikipedia:

Comac C919 - First flight: 2017, introduced 2023, number built: 10 (3 in service?)

Sukhoi Superjet 100 - First flight: 2008, introduced 2011, number built: 229

Boeing 737 MAX - First flight: 2016, introduced 2017, number built: 1,376

Airbus A320 NEO - First flight: 2014, introduced 2016, number built: 3,092

They're not even in the same ballpark. It'll take Comac decades to make those inroads and Sukhoi is done for.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get... by oska on Saturday January 06, 2024 @02:46AM (#38889394)
Why do you think the Sukhoi is 'done for' ?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get... by consp on Saturday January 06, 2024 @03:11AM (#38889535)
Impossibility to get parts legally due to sanctions.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get... by oska on Saturday January 06, 2024 @03:50AM (#38889752)
My understanding is that they have developed an import substitution plan for the jet and are resolved to keep producing it. [1] For instance, they are substituting the original SaM-146 engines with fully domestically produced PD-8 engines and I understand they are already, or close to testing the first prototype with the new engines (they already tested an earlier prototype with other import substitutions but which still had the old engines). [2]

[1] https://asiatimes.com/2023/09/russia-defies-sanctions-with-h...

[2] https://tass.com/economy/1699907

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get... by ffgjgf1 on Saturday January 06, 2024 @04:06AM (#38889818)
> or close to testing the first prototype with the new engines

Considering that Russian engineering culture is even worse than that of Boeing (and probably massively so) it’s unlikely that they can ever be competitive if that’s the main issue

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get... by sofixa on Saturday January 06, 2024 @07:37AM (#38890940)
Which begs the question, why didn't they use those engines initially? The answer is probably in their efficiency, because Russian engines are not known for that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get... by DrNosferatu on Saturday January 06, 2024 @03:14AM (#38889561)
Also the Embraer E195-E2.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get... by rvba on Saturday January 06, 2024 @08:34AM (#38891295)
Remember that the whole country stands behind the chinese plane - they can just order their own lines to use it
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get... by gmerc on Sunday January 07, 2024 @07:36AM (#38900736)
Basically like Boeing - it’s a defense asset. No difference
[ Parent | on HN ]