Talk:Comac C919

High capacity seating

Hi all. I found the high capacity seating of the aircraft to be 190 from Simpleflying.com. Generally, I think some reportings from Simpleflying of questionable quality. I second source it from CGTN. My edit was reverted because it's considered an unreliable source. --Now wiki (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Formatting reversion

[moved from User talk:Marc Lacoste, more relevant here]

Hi, I read your comment w/r/t your formatting reversion on the above-refrenced wiki page; seems fine to me. I added the row and column formatting on the delivery table to save myself some time in the future (had some spare time to figure out how to do the table formatting so I thought I'd add it now rather than having to figure it out again later when I'm more pressed for time). On the unreliability tags, my question is if "rzjets.net" and "planespotters.net" are generally considered to be unreliable, what is a better source; perhaps a better source should be cited for the C919 page.

Cheers, Spotty's Friend (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Spotty's Friend: Indeed, the mainspace is not suited for experiments. You can use your personal space to try some formatting.

rzjets.net and planespotters.net seems to be self-published/user-generated content and fall under WP:USERGENERATED. Better refs for production lists can be aviation authorities, the manufacturer itself (I think it's the case for Airbus or Boeing), or reliable editor-supervised publications, like Flight International's yearly census. Cheers--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste

Hi Marc, thanks for your reply. Just one comment: I understand your general concerns re "self-generated material", but it seems to me that your criteria for what constitutes a self-generated source in the field of aerospace may be a bit too strict since, for example, "Gunter's Space Page" (by a German national I think) which is widely cited by Wiki pages on orbital and suborbital rocket launchers may also qualify as a "self-generated source". Citing only manufacturers and traditional publications as sources in order to maximally shrink the informational error-bars ignore the often enormous efforts expended by enthusiasts (which include Wiki editors). Of course, this is only my peraonal observation.

Cheers, Spotty's Friend (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Spotty's Friend: Using WP:reliable sources is paramount. Despite the scrutiny, even Wikipedia itself is not reliable enough to be used as a RS (see WP:Circular). I'm mainly interested in civilian aircraft, so I can't vouch for other fields, but it seems to attract less enthusiastic amateurs than rockets and military aircraft.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)