Key Technical Deltas & Mission Envelopes
-100 kg
COMAC C919 (78,900 kg) vs Airbus A320neo (79,000 kg). Structural maximum weight dictates certified runway length requirements and navigation airspace fee calculations.
-745 km
COMAC C919 reaches 5,555 km, while Airbus A320neo achieves 6,300 km under mandatory ETOPS reserve fuel rules.
+3 seats
168 passengers aboard COMAC C919 compared to 165 in Airbus A320neo, governing revenue seat-kilometer generation and cabin aisle ergonomics.
+0.0 m
35.8 m (COMAC C919) versus 35.8 m (Airbus A320neo), governing ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code gate docking boundaries.
| Aeronautical Metric | COMAC C919 | Airbus A320neo | Comparative Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) | 78,900 kg | 79,000 kg | -100 kg |
| Maximum Payload Range | 5,555 km | 6,300 km | -745 km |
| Wingspan Geometry | 35.8 m | 35.8 m | +0.0 m |
| Typical 2-Class Passenger Seating | 168 seats | 165 seats | +3 seats |
| Transonic Cruise Speed | Mach 0.785 | Mach 0.78 | 0.01 |
Aerodynamic Architecture & Propulsion Metrology
Aerodynamic Efficiency & Wing Planform Optimization
When contrasting the COMAC C919 against the Airbus A320neo, aerodynamic configuration represents the primary determinant of transonic cruise efficiency. The COMAC C919 exhibits a wingspan of 35.8 meters with optimized wing sweep, designed to delay Mach shockwave formation across the upper airfoil surface. In comparison, the Airbus A320neo features an aerodynamic span of 35.8 meters, engineered with specialized wingtip devices to attenuate induced vortex drag. Modern high-aspect-ratio wing designs lower fuel consumption by preserving laminar boundary-layer flow and mitigating drag-divergence Mach penalties during long-range cruise regimes at FL350 to FL410.
Supercritical aerofoil sections delay boundary layer separation at transonic Mach numbers, flattening the upper wing pressure distribution to minimize wave drag. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) optimizations across both airframes govern lift-to-drag ratios during high-altitude cruise, directly translating to thousands of kilograms in fuel burn divergence across typical 5,000 nautical mile mission profiles. Aerodynamic wing-to-body fairings smoothly blend fuselage contours to suppress interference drag throughout critical climb regimes.
Propulsion Architecture & Thrust-to-Weight Dynamics
Turbofan powerplant selection governs thermodynamic efficiency and operational climb gradients. The COMAC C919 utilizes CFM LEAP-1C (2x) engines generating 130 kN of takeoff thrust per nacelle, resulting in a certified thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.336. Conversely, the Airbus A320neo is powered by CFM LEAP-1A26 / PW1127G (2x) powerplants delivering 120.6 kN each with a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.312. Higher bypass ratios reduce specific fuel consumption and engine noise acoustic signatures, enabling full compliance with ICAO Chapter 14 noise standards while assuring second-segment climb gradient margins during single-engine failure scenarios.
Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) governs turbine blade thermal cycles and variable bleed valve scheduling, maximizing thermodynamic Brayton cycle efficiency. Automated thrust derate capabilities protect turbine hot sections during takeoff from sea-level runways, reducing life-limited part replacement cycles and minimizing unscheduled engine removals. Certified single-engine drift-down ceilings guarantee positive obstacle clearance over high mountain ranges during en-route depressurization or powerplant shutdown.
Certified Flight Deck Dispatch Compliance
Operating Economics, CASK & Ramp Ground Compatibility
Payload-Range Trade-Off & Available Seat-Kilometer Economics
Airline fleet planning hinges upon the mathematical trade-off between payload weight and maximum sector distance. The COMAC C919 provides a maximum structural payload of 18,900 kg alongside a maximum fuel capacity of 24,900 liters. In head-to-head route dispatch modeling, the Airbus A320neo accommodates 20,000 kg of payload with a fuel volume of 26,730 liters. Cost per Available Seat-Kilometer (CASK) favors whichever airframe achieves superior structural weight fraction and lower maintenance per block hour, providing dispatch flexibility across diverse high-density stage lengths.
Revenue Seat-Kilometer (RSK) optimization requires evaluating passenger cabin comfort tiers, galley locations, and lavatory monuments. Composite airframe structures allow higher cabin humidity levels (up to 15%) and lower effective cabin altitudes (6,000 feet instead of 8,000 feet), substantially reducing passenger fatigue on long-haul missions. Underfloor cargo volume configured for standardized LD3 unit load devices (ULD) generates vital auxiliary belly-freight revenue across international long-haul corridors.
Airport Infrastructure & Ramp Ground Compatibility
Ground handling logistics and airport apron compatibility are strictly determined by physical dimensions. The COMAC C919 measures 38.9 meters in length and 11.95 meters in empennage height, demanding specific gate clearances and turnaround ground support equipment. The Airbus A320neo, with a length of 37.57 meters and tail height of 11.76 meters, impacts pavement loading through its certified Main Landing Gear footprint. Both airframes require careful alignment with airport jet bridge docking systems, fuel hydrant supply flowrates, and runway pavement classification ratings (PCR/ACR) under current FAA and EASA aerodrome operating directives.
Turnaround efficiency directly impacts daily aircraft utilization. Multi-wheel landing gear arrangements distribute certified gross takeoff weight across flexible and rigid pavements, preventing structural subgrade fatigue while ground servicing vehicles complete synchronized cargo loading, water servicing, and pre-conditioned air delivery.
Certified Flight Deck Hardware & Avionics Controllers
Thrustmaster TCA Captain Pack Airbus Edition
Ergonomic side-stick replica and dual-engine quadrant with operational reverser mechanism for A320neo, A321XLR, and A350 simulation.
View Airbus Sidestick & Quadrant ➔Honeycomb Aeronautical Bravo Throttle Quadrant
Universal multi-engine flight console with commercial airliner autopilot annunciator panel and configurable levers.
Explore Honeycomb Throttle Console ➔
How does the COMAC C919 compare to the Airbus A320neo in flight range?
The COMAC C919 achieves a maximum certified payload range of 5,555 km (2,999 nmi), compared to 6,300 km (3,402 nmi) on the Airbus A320neo, a mission delta of 745 km.
Which aircraft offers higher maximum certified takeoff weight?
The Airbus A320neo holds the higher certified Maximum Takeoff Weight at 79,000 kg, versus 78,900 kg on the COMAC C919.