Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARJ21 - Advanced Regional Jet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ARJ21 - Advanced Regional Jet

    Hello,

    for those interested, here is a link to one photo showing the ARJ21.
    There are "minor similarities" with another design :

    http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/view...av2&picid=4295

    Regards, IB M87
    http://www.MD-80.com / MD-80.com on facebook https://www.facebook.com/MD80com / MD-80.com on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MD80com

  • #2
    Ahh, the joys of reverse-engineering...

    Comment


    • #3
      It looks like very much Boeing 717. Why they do that? It would be bad for pilots to see traffic the wrong type of identify aircraft. WOW! Crazy!

      Stuart

      Comment


      • #4
        Ring...

        Hi China, Northwest Airlines here

        We would love to take about 100 of your DC-9 knock-offs to help replace our aging fleet... whats that they are in-efficient? Perfect!
        O'Hare - The Aviation God's greatest creation, or their greatest mistake? you be the judge!

        Comment


        • #5
          Ring...

          Hi China, Northwest Airlines here
          http://www.MD-80.com / MD-80.com on facebook https://www.facebook.com/MD80com / MD-80.com on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MD80com

          Comment


          • #6
            Sure this isn't some sort of internet hoax? Doesn't look like anything has been changed at all.

            -Chris

            Comment


            • #7
              woah, nice replacement for NWA!

              yes i am a boeing fan, and i know thats a airbus, haha

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by z740
                Sure this isn't some sort of internet hoax? Doesn't look like anything has been changed at all.

                -Chris

                Have you try to use google? That's what I found: http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/arj21/

                Stuart

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by z740
                  Sure this isn't some sort of internet hoax? Doesn't look like anything has been changed at all.

                  -Chris
                  Windscreen layout was changed (smaller panes traded for larger panes for captain and F/O), different engines, other smaller differences.
                  The fuselage, wings, and tail are basically identical to the 90 because the same tooling as McDD used are being employed here.
                  Large discussion about this...suffice to say, 'elsewhere'.
                  EDIT:
                  Here's a link to the planned flightdeck:
                  http://www.aerospace-technology.com/...21/arj215.html
                  and an artist's influence of the completed airplane:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I am just amazed that they created this aircraft. It was exceptional for the time in which it was originally invisioned, but now it's archaic in that it's competitiors are light-years ahead. Why build this aircraft when you have all of the major DC-9/MD-80-90/717 operators moving to 737s, A320s and/or ERJs? Those aircraft are more efficent. I can only see this aircraft gathering orders from Chinese carriers (if any) and if fitted with ultra-efficent engines, then maybe a few other carriers.
                    Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ...when you have all of the major DC-9/MD-80-90/717 operators moving to 737s, A320s and/or ERJs? Those aircraft are more efficent.
                      Yes. These design are slowly fading away, but:

                      I donīt think that the DC-9 lost more ground in Europe while McDonnell Douglas was in business. McDonnell Douglas was able to secure most DC-9-operators for their MD-80s then. Exceptions were probably British Midland, Turkish Airlines and a big loss: KLM.

                      Boeing "lost traditional 737-costumers" in Europe in the last 10 to 15 years than winning additional sales from operators of older 737s. This fact was largely compensated by huge sales to Low-cost-carriers.
                      The original costumers for the 737 in Europe largely switched to the A320-family (for example British Airways, Aer Lingus, Air France, Lufthansa, TAP, Sabena, Air One, Aeroflot, bmi, easyJet etc.).
                      The only reamarkable successes were in my opinion Malev, KLM, Braathens, SAS (but SAS was not so happy with their 737-600s and in 2001/2002 SAS officially evaluated the sale of its entire 737-600-fleet).
                      The 737-600 may be much younger but SASīs DC-9-40s and MD-87s (nearly the same size) operated not much less effective due to other factors.
                      Some may even say that SAS would be more happy with the 717-200 (and 717-300) alongside MD-80s (and then MD-90s).
                      In Europe most MD-80-operators switched to the A320-family and Boeing was overall not able to win much more additional costumers after the costumer-base inherited with McDonnell Douglas. AeroMexico and Korean Air were probably the most significant costumers for 737NGs after the "merger". Boeing lost costumers like Iberia - OK, Iberia said in 2004 that they would continue to operate their MD-80s for another ten years but then decided to order more A32S - wer lost and Boeing also lost many 727-operators to Airbus.

                      In the USA Boeing lost several traditional 737-costumers too. United, US Airways, Frontier. The huge sales to American, Delta and Continental in the mid-1990s generated much publicity because of the "agreements" made (buying only Boeing for the next 20 years etc.).

                      It is very difficult to say that an aircraft is generally more efficient or less efficient. A 737-500 can be very profitable for Airline XXX while the A319 may not for Airline YYY vice versa. The same can be said for the MD-80, MD-87 , MD-90 or 717. For Spanair the 717 is probably much more efficient than the A318/319 - the more logical step towards a simplified fleet and Spanair planned to get rid of their MD-80-fleet until 2006. They are now operating the largest MD-80-fleet in Spain. Just imagine that the heaviest empty MD-80 weighs less than a A318. This saves much costs in Europe but there are some addiotnal costs due to noise and higher fuel-consumption.
                      Many thought that Lufthansa would buy 15-25 A318s as 737-500-replacement but the 737 is still very valuable for Lufthansa. They are believed to be long paid-off and they can be operated very efficient. But Lufthansa did not go on to order the 737-600/-700 for example.

                      And I think that there are huge differencies between the operating costs of a DC-9 and MD-80. The MD-80s heritage is the DC-9 but this does not mean that the MD-80 is producing the same costs per seat like the DC-9-15.
                      The best time for the MD-80 is fading away but just take a look back when airlines were able to order other aircraft (737-300/-400, A320 etc.) than the MD-80. The MD-80 captured a respective number of operators. The 737-400 (as a direct replacement size-wise) were sold less than the MD-80, the 737-500 was more successful than the MD-87. Once Swissair officially told that the MD-87 "is not suitable for Europe". Many people agreed but why most MD-87s were sold to Europe? The reason for Swissair not to take the MD-87 as a complement for their MD-81 was maybe more influenced by the fact that Swissair tried to operate a different type of aircraft (Fokker 100s) by Crossair-crews. At this time it was probably not able to cut payments for pilots for MD-87s only because the MD-87 was ca. 5 m shorter than the MD-81. This transfer was not allowed and the Fokker 100 were operated by very expensive Swissair-pilots while Crossair introduced BAe146s. Several years later agreement was reached and Crossair took over the role of flying aircraft with less than 100-seats (Avroliner) and the Fokker 100s were retired.

                      Clearly McDonnell Douglas lost much business and even at the beginning of the 1990s the manufacturer lost some very important costumers for their then very new MD-90. The proposed MD-90EC (European Community) was not the answer for carriers like SAS, Finnair, Austrian and Swissair, The last two mentioned ordered the A320-family during this phase but at this time McDonnell Douglas was able to compensate such losses by wealthy sales (it was the time with the highest delivery-rates for MD-80s).
                      Boeing and Airbus offered the "better" product with their 737- and A32S-families while McDonnell Douglas was not able to offer such family.
                      So history showed that McDonnell Douglas faded away.

                      And even with very high fuel-costs and higher maintenance: American Airlines continues to operate a very large MD-80-fleet and itīs the spirit of time that in most cases only negative aspects are decribed. But there are huge savings for American too to operate such a high number of very reliable and dependable aircraft with reasonable operating-costs. I personally doubt that American would overall save huge amounts of money with many more 737-800s as direct MD-80-replacements. The future is the next design of the 737 and this design will probably replace the MD-80s. The phase-out of older MD-80s is not a real indication that American is phasing out their entire MD-80-fleet by 737-800s. Air France will replace their oldest A320 very soon and Lufthansa is also planning to phase out their oldest A320s.

                      Have a nice sunday!

                      Regards, IB M87
                      http://www.MD-80.com / MD-80.com on facebook https://www.facebook.com/MD80com / MD-80.com on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MD80com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by z740
                        Sure this isn't some sort of internet hoax? Doesn't look like anything has been changed at all.

                        -Chris
                        This is the way that China operates. They will go and take an established product take it apart measure it and start to produce there own version of it. how do i know this i worked for an importer of Chinese made off road vehicles. The engines, transmissions, shocks, Etc were all copied from VW, Honda, Izuzu, Fox Shox, Yamaha, Arctic Cat, Etc.

                        The only thing that is scary is the fact that the quality control was so poor that the things keept falling apart. In one case we got in 1000's of units that had the incorrect antifreeze installed this stuff would freeze up at 40 Deg F and was also corrosive in nature it would be able to eat thru a coke can in 3 weeks!!

                        The scary thing i see with this is the fact that if China went and took apart a MD to design the ARJ21. Will parts end up being used on MD aircraft by smaller airlines that may cause safety issues because that parts will be less exspensive to purchase???
                        Robin Guess Aviation Historian, Photographer, Web Designer.

                        http://www.Jet-Fighters.Net
                        http://www.Jet-Liners.Net

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jet-fighters.Net
                          This is the way that China operates. They will go and take an established product take it apart measure it and start to produce there own version of it. how do i know this i worked for an importer of Chinese made off road vehicles. The engines, transmissions, shocks, Etc were all copied from VW, Honda, Izuzu, Fox Shox, Yamaha, Arctic Cat, Etc.
                          And it only gets worse, just look at all the "Smarts", "Mercedes" and "BMWs" being built in China these days...

                          Originally posted by Jet-fighters.Net
                          Will parts end up being used on MD aircraft by smaller airlines that may cause safety issues because that parts will be less exspensive to purchase???
                          Doubt this'll happen in most Western countries, but in poorer Asian, African, East European and Latin American countries, that could very well happen.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just hope it's not made completely of lead and asbestos.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Seen in one piece or so since my post long ago The project is definitely moving forward. Looks the front windscreen will be one-piece as with Boeing and Airbus, the loss of this distinctive central pane means another Douglas single aisle jet's detail gone.
                              Last edited by uy707; 2007-12-17, 16:20.
                              Thanks for visiting
                              *Avimage's Monthly Slide list *
                              *JetPhotos*
                              Airliners*Pbase.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X