Which is why they have a tendency to hide bad news and failure rather than not have it in the first place. Bankruptcy and failure is quite common in China, but you wont hear about it. hardly a good sign for an industry that needs openness and honesty.

China doesn't do 'engineering' - it does 'copying' without necessarily the insight into why things are the way they are - and then buries the failures.

I can remember British and American car and electronics firms saying the same thing about Japan in the '60's

China, like the Japanese before them, learns from each iteration of a product they make.

Those throwing stones would do well to remember the 737 MAX debacle.

I’d say the big problem would be when the Chinese govt decides to flex its foreign policy by restricting the export of spare parts and the like. Much like the US has done with Russia.

You’re damn tooting.

China is completely covered with carpets, under which failures are wiped (by the decree of its authoritarian ruler). Including those who dare to make public those failures. See what happened around the Covid-19 origin (both location and existence), the millions of denied deaths, when Covid went haywire in China, etc.

See, what got done after the first High-Speed train accident in China: The carriages got "buried" by a local contractor, just to wipe out the traces.

See the extremely bad, low, and dangerous quality of all the "cheap" crap coming from China.

Not to say, that the long-term development of technical ingenuity does not co-exist with a society where the major task is to avoid "loss of face", where lying is the norm, where extensive punishment is practiced as retaliation for failures, where politics have a major and final say about "technics", etc.

The same fundamental reasons why the Russian military turned out to be completely dysfunctional.

We saw with the MAX, what happens when things are brushed under the carpet, and Boeing still denies it, etc.

Not a lot of info on Captain Fathom's background.

China’s DJI accounts for 75% of the world drone/personal UAV market, and is considered to be the leader in new drone technology. If you know someone with a drone it’s probably a Chinese one, and they’ve outclassed US or Euro companies on the global market.

These aren’t the days of Tupolev or Ilyushin.

Yep, those areas where the politics did not interfere with the tech, manage to flourish in China. Larger companies, adhering to Western engineering and production methods, manage to grow into an international market. Though, let's be realistic about this: The "cheap" (affordable on the world market) engineering/production is largely due to slave-labor alike circumstances for the staff.

The same reasons why ME carriers can be successful: Slave labor circumstances with 24/7 airport use, ignoring the health of people living around the airports.

Absolutely! and you forgot to add total disregard for environment, which will become the most important priority in the years to come.

The C919 was described 10 years ago as the wonder that would put Airbus and Boeing in their knees beacause it would cost a fraction of its werstern counterparts. I wonder what the selling price would be today to an outside China airline ?
And similarly the the Sukhoi SSJ , a lot of its componnents depend on werstern parts, which inflated its end price, and it was definitively not a success as expected . so we'll see if this one has a better chance.

As to Chinese only copying , this morning France announced the opening of a factory nickmamed the "Airbus of car batteries" ( joint venture between France, Germany and Italy) , interestingly it says that the technology and the machines/robots used in this fcatory are imported from China,and South Korea, and only these 2 countries have the knowhow and the expertise in this field .A complex transfer of technology agreement had to be put in place.

Actually, my initial text did have that in too, though I removed it because it's a bit of a mixed bag. However, I absolutely agree with you, these third-world countries still have little understanding of the "environment". Especially the fact, that EVERYBODY has a small contribution to this.

Just today, I caught a 6-year-old just in time, to prevent her from throwing an empty Tetra pack "just on the roadside" and directed her, to hold the pack until at home and throw it in the garbage can. Next time, when I am not there, she'll probably revert to her normal habit, though let's hope, when older she starts to make the connection between the mess on the street and people's behavior ;-)

China overseas politics may come into play, particularly in Africa. Given their "investment" in infrastructure there I wonder if a few aircraft will also appear?

Maybe, with the same quality aspects as with the infrastructure items, built by China quality contractors, based on politically motivated China government (backed) loans.

Combine the excellent China quality with the inherent African tendency to properly maintain what one has and the long technical life of these items, being far beyond the time required to pay off the loans for these items, and one can expect all these countries to be in for a very prosperous future. And at the same time giving China the opportunity to reinvest the money they get back on loan pay off's. Or do I miss something?

I do hear stories about large-scale loan restructuring for these African countries, with repayment terms beyond the time horizon, or just outright confiscating the properties (ehh buy for default value), and internal China messages about (super) large scale mortgage restructuring in such a way that the grandchildren still pay off the mortgages of their grandparents. All these items are financially very healthy. Or do I miss something?

Of course, the red carpet is being used to brush away unwanted items.

Gives me visions of the USSR "selling" their fighter aircraft to poor Asian/African countries, just to find out, these turned into scrap, not long after delivery.

I think the C919 is a good example of the limits of the current Chinese political system. All the hard parts are 100% Western technology and yet it is still effectively obsolete on its first day of revenue service. I don't think it is a "bad" airplane in that it should be able transport passengers with a acceptable level of safety between domestic airports and it is probably certifiable by Western regulators, but it will never be economically viable. Even if the airplane was sold at a huge discount the life cycle costs, high CASM, and likely low OTP, make it unviable.

Once again the failure of a top down politically command driven system has demonstrated the superiority of a rules based open and free society in creating innovation. Capitalism has plenty of problems but the Chinese system is worse in every way.

Besides Ethiopian and (former) South African who esle in Africa is buying new jet transports from manufacturers? For the reasons explained by WideScreen I do not think C919s will see the light of Africa until they become old and cheaply available.

Having operated for an Asian based airline for 2 decades, and witnessed the shenanigans that go on, particularly with China, and literally anything it produces or attempts to develop.... the acid test, as always, has to be, would you put your family on a Chinese built jet operated by Chinese crew.

The answer to that has to be, an emphatic no way!

Isn’t this thing just a flying Patent Infringement?

OK, I'll bite - what patent(s) do you have in mind ?

I'm reminded of when Airbus started out, they asked Boeing for the research done on optimum engine/wing interface, no deal said Boeing. The patents office is full of Boeing patents, one I found among the thousands was for hydraulic powered controls, first used on the P-38 ailerons. As for infringement, patents do lapse.