Sourcing Guide Contents
Industrial Clusters: Where to Source China Aeroplane Manufacturing
SourcifyChina B2B Sourcing Report 2026: China Aviation Component Manufacturing Landscape
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers | Objective Market Intelligence | Q1 2026
Executive Summary
China’s aviation manufacturing sector is strategically state-controlled and operates under strict regulatory frameworks (CAAC, MIIT, AVIC). Crucially, China does not export complete commercial aircraft (e.g., COMAC C919, ARJ21) to international markets. This report focuses exclusively on sourcing aviation-grade components, subsystems, and MRO services – the only viable segment for international procurement. Global OEMs (Boeing, Airbus, Spirit AeroSystems) increasingly leverage Chinese Tier 2/3 suppliers for non-critical parts under technology transfer agreements. Key clusters specialize in composites, avionics, precision machining, and landing gear. Compliance with ITAR/EAR and CAAC certification is non-negotiable.
Key Industrial Clusters for Aviation Component Sourcing
China’s aviation ecosystem is anchored by state-owned giants (AVIC, COMAC, AECC), with private suppliers concentrated near these hubs. No coastal province (e.g., Guangdong, Zhejiang) manufactures airframes or critical flight systems. Focus instead on these specialized clusters:
-
Shanghai (Pudong) & Jiangsu (Suzhou/Nanjing)
- Core Focus: COMAC HQ (C919 final assembly), flight control systems, cabin interiors, composites.
- Key Players: COMAC, AVIC Shanghai Aircraft, Spirit AeroSystems (Suzhou JV), Honeywell (Suzhou).
- Procurement Relevance: High-value subsystems (e.g., environmental control), precision sheet metal. Foreign JVs dominate export-capable output.
-
Shaanxi (Xi’an)
- Core Focus: Military/civil aircraft structures (XAC), engines (AECC), landing gear, titanium machining.
- Key Players: AVIC Xi’an Aircraft, AECC Commercial Aero-Engine, Xi’an Feiji.
- Procurement Relevance: Largest cluster for airframe structures (wings, fuselage sections). Strong in titanium/Al alloy machining. Requires direct AVIC partnership.
-
Sichuan (Chengdu)
- Core Focus: Helicopters (AC312/352), avionics, engine R&D (AECC), composites.
- Key Players: AVIC Chengdu Aircraft, AECC Gas Turbine, Huawei (avionics R&D support).
- Procurement Relevance: Helicopter components, specialized sensors. Growing private sector in avionics testing.
-
Liaoning (Shenyang)
- Core Focus: Military fighter jets (SAC), engine manufacturing, advanced materials.
- Key Players: AVIC Shenyang Aircraft, AECC Shenyang.
- Procurement Relevance: Limited civilian export potential; primarily military supply chain. High precision but stringent export controls.
Regional Comparison: Sourcing Aviation Components from China
Note: “Price,” “Quality,” and “Lead Time” are relative to aviation-grade components only (AS9100 certified). Complete aircraft sourcing is not feasible for export. Metrics based on Tier 2/3 supplier engagement for non-critical parts (e.g., brackets, ducting, cabin fittings).
| Region | Typical Components Sourced | Price Competitiveness | Quality Consistency (AS9100) | Lead Time (Standard Order) | Key Constraints & Risks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shanghai/Jiangsu | Flight control actuators, cabin interiors, composites | Medium-High (Premium) | ★★★★★ (JV/Top-Tier Suppliers) | 14-20 weeks | High: Requires OEM-approved JVs; IP protection critical; limited to non-core systems. |
| Shaanxi (Xi’an) | Wing ribs, fuselage frames, landing gear parts | Medium (Value) | ★★★★☆ (Strong but variable) | 18-24 weeks | Critical: AVIC-dominated; export licenses complex; military-civilian overlap scrutiny. |
| Sichuan (Chengdu) | Helicopter rotors, sensors, avionics housings | Medium | ★★★☆☆ (Improving rapidly) | 16-22 weeks | High: Helicopter focus limits applicability; avionics face US tech restrictions. |
| Guangdong | Non-Aviation Focus (Consumer electronics, generic machined parts) | ★★★★★ (Lowest) | ★★☆☆☆ (Rarely AS9100 certified) | 8-12 weeks | Severe: NOT a viable aviation cluster. Parts lack airworthiness certification; high counterfeit risk. |
| Zhejiang | Non-Aviation Focus (Auto parts, fasteners) | ★★★★☆ (Low) | ★★☆☆☆ (Non-aerospace standards) | 10-14 weeks | Severe: No significant aviation OEM presence. Suppliers lack NADCAP/AS9100; unsuitable for flight-critical parts. |
★ Key Legend: 5★ = Industry Benchmark | 4★ = Competitive | 3★ = Acceptable with Oversight | 2★ = High Risk | 1★ = Unsuitable
Critical Procurement Guidance for 2026
- Forget “Complete Aircraft”: Sourcing aircraft from China is impossible for foreign buyers. Target components only via OEM-approved channels.
- Certification is Non-Negotiable: Demand AS9100 Rev D and NADCAP accreditation. CAAC Part 21J/G licenses are mandatory for Chinese suppliers.
- AVIC/JV Gatekeeping: 80% of export-capable capacity flows through AVIC subsidiaries or foreign JVs (e.g., Spirit AeroSystems Suzhou). Direct private sourcing is high-risk.
- Compliance Over Cost: ITAR/EAR violations carry severe penalties. Engage legal counsel before RFQ. Avoid clusters like Guangdong/Zhejiang for aviation.
- Lead Time Realism: Aviation lead times in China are longer than consumer goods due to QA cycles. Budget 18-24 weeks for first-article approval.
Actionable Next Steps for Procurement Managers
✅ Engage OEM Procurement Teams: Boeing/Airbus have established China sourcing desks (e.g., Boeing Shanghai). Partner through them.
✅ Prioritize Shanghai/Jiangsu & Xi’an: Target JV facilities (e.g., Spirit AeroSystems Suzhou, AVIC Xi’an) for certified components.
✅ Conduct On-Site NADCAP Audits: Never rely on paper certifications. SourcifyChina offers CAAC-compliant audit protocols.
⚠️ Avoid “Aviation Suppliers” in Guangdong/Zhejiang: These are typically mislabeled general manufacturers. Risk of counterfeit/non-certified parts is extreme.
“China’s aviation supply chain offers cost advantages for qualified components, but operates under a fortress model. Success requires navigating state-owned enterprise structures and treating compliance as the primary cost driver – not labor arbitrage.”
— SourcifyChina Aviation Practice Lead, 2026
SourcifyChina Disclaimer: This report covers commercially exportable components only. Military aviation, complete aircraft, and unlicensed technology transfer are strictly prohibited under Chinese and international law. Verify all supplier credentials with CAAC and your home country’s aviation authority.
Data Sources: CAAC 2025 Industrial Report, AVIC Supplier Directory, Boeing China Sourcing Survey 2025, SourcifyChina Field Audit Database.
Technical Specs & Compliance Guide
Professional B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Subject: Technical Specifications & Compliance Requirements for Aircraft Manufacturing in China
Prepared For: Global Procurement Managers
Author: Senior Sourcing Consultant, SourcifyChina
Date: April 2025
Executive Summary
China’s aerospace manufacturing sector has evolved significantly, with state-backed enterprises (e.g., COMAC, AVIC) and private suppliers advancing capabilities in commercial and regional aircraft production. For global procurement managers, sourcing aircraft components or engaging in joint ventures with Chinese manufacturers requires strict adherence to international technical standards and compliance frameworks. This report outlines the technical specifications, critical quality parameters, essential certifications, and quality risk mitigation strategies for sourcing in China’s aeroplane manufacturing ecosystem.
1. Technical Specifications Overview
Aircraft manufacturing in China—particularly for commercial platforms like the COMAC C919 or ARJ21 regional jet—follows stringent international design and production benchmarks. Key technical specifications include:
| Parameter | Specification Requirements |
|---|---|
| Materials | Aerospace-grade aluminum alloys (e.g., 2024, 7075), titanium (Grade 5), carbon fiber composites (e.g., T800, T700), high-strength steels (e.g., 4340), and specialty polymers (PEEK, PI) |
| Tolerances | ±0.025 mm for critical flight control components; ±0.1 mm for structural assemblies. Laser metrology and CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine) validation required |
| Surface Finish | Ra ≤ 0.8 µm for high-load components; non-destructive testing (NDT) for surface integrity |
| Weight-to-Strength Ratio | Minimum 150 kN·m/kg for primary structural materials |
| Fatigue Resistance | 60,000+ flight cycles at 1.5x operational load (per FAA/EASA CS-25 standards) |
| Thermal Resistance | Sustained operation at -55°C to +120°C; short exposure up to 200°C for engine zones |
2. Essential Compliance & Certifications
Procurement from Chinese aerospace suppliers must ensure compliance with international regulatory frameworks. The following certifications are mandatory for export-grade components:
| Certification | Governing Body | Scope of Application | Validity for Chinese Suppliers |
|---|---|---|---|
| FAA PMA / EASA Form 1 | U.S. Federal Aviation Administration / European Union Aviation Safety Agency | Approval for aircraft parts replacement and installation | Required for export to U.S./EU; COMAC C919 is pursuing EASA type certification |
| AS9100D | International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) | Quality Management System (QMS) for aviation, space, and defense | Mandatory for Tier 1/2 suppliers; widely adopted by AVIC and COMAC partners |
| ISO 9001:2015 | International Organization for Standardization | General QMS framework | Baseline requirement; insufficient alone for aerospace |
| NADCAP | Performance Review Institute (PRI) | Special processes (welding, heat treatment, NDT) | Required for high-integrity processes; growing adoption in China |
| CE Marking (for subsystems) | EU Directive 2014/30/EU (EMC), 2013/30/EU (ATEX) | Electromechanical systems, avionics | Applies to non-airframe components (e.g., lighting, sensors) |
| UL 840 / UL 1446 | Underwriters Laboratories | Insulation systems and dielectric materials | Required for wiring, connectors, and cabin systems |
Note: While FDA and UL are not typically applicable to airframes, UL certification is relevant for cabin electronics and fire-resistant materials. FDA applies only to consumables (e.g., water systems, galley components).
3. Common Quality Defects in Chinese Aircraft Manufacturing & Prevention Strategies
Despite improvements, supply chain inconsistencies persist, particularly among Tier 2/3 suppliers. The table below outlines frequently observed defects and recommended mitigation actions.
| Common Quality Defect | Root Cause | Prevention Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Delamination in Composite Structures | Poor resin curing, contamination, or fiber misalignment | Enforce NDT (ultrasonic, thermography); require autoclave process validation; audit layup procedures |
| Dimensional Drift in Machined Parts | Tool wear, thermal expansion, or inadequate CMM calibration | Mandate in-process metrology; require SPC (Statistical Process Control) data; verify fixture stability |
| Porosity in Welded Joints | Improper shielding gas, moisture, or incorrect parameters | Implement NADCAP-accredited welding; conduct X-ray/RT inspections; control environment humidity |
| Surface Corrosion on Aluminum Alloys | Inadequate anodizing or improper storage conditions | Specify MIL-A-8625 or AMS 2471; enforce dry storage; require salt spray (ASTM B117) test reports |
| Non-Conforming Fastener Torque | Incorrect torque tool calibration or operator error | Mandate calibrated torque tools with digital logs; conduct random audits; use traceable fastener IDs |
| Inconsistent Heat Treatment | Variability in furnace temperature or quenching rate | Require AMS 2750 compliance; monitor soak time/temperature; conduct hardness testing (Rockwell C) |
| Foreign Object Debris (FOD) | Poor 5S practices or inadequate cleanroom protocols | Enforce FOD prevention programs; conduct pre-shipment particle inspection; audit 6S compliance |
4. Sourcing Recommendations for Procurement Managers
- Supplier Qualification: Prioritize AS9100D- and NADCAP-certified suppliers. Conduct on-site audits with third-party engineering consultants.
- First Article Inspection (FAI): Require full AS9102-compliant FAI reports for all new components.
- Traceability: Enforce full material traceability (mill certs, batch numbers, heat codes) and digital part genealogy.
- IP Protection: Use secure NDAs and consider offshore IP registration when sharing technical data.
- Logistics & Customs: Partner with IATA-certified freight forwarders; ensure ITAR compliance for dual-use technologies.
Conclusion
China’s aeroplane manufacturing sector offers strategic sourcing opportunities, particularly in composite structures, avionics integration, and regional aircraft platforms. However, success depends on rigorous technical validation, certification compliance, and proactive quality management. Procurement managers must adopt a risk-based approach, leveraging audits, certifications, and preventive controls to ensure airworthiness and supply chain resilience.
For tailored sourcing strategies and supplier vetting in China’s aerospace sector, contact SourcifyChina’s Advanced Manufacturing Division.
© 2026 SourcifyChina. Confidential. Prepared exclusively for B2B procurement professionals. Not for redistribution.
Cost Analysis & OEM/ODM Strategies
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Report: Model Aircraft Manufacturing in China (2026 Guidance)
Prepared For: Global Procurement Managers | Date: Q1 2026
Confidentiality: SourcifyChina Client Advisory
Critical Clarification: Scope Definition
This report addresses scale model aircraft/hobbyist RC (Remote Control) aircraft manufacturing in China, NOT commercial passenger aircraft production. China’s commercial aviation sector (e.g., COMAC C919) operates under state-controlled programs with no OEM/ODM sourcing opportunities for external procurement managers. Real aircraft manufacturing involves billions in R&D, sovereign oversight, and zero white-label options. All cost analysis herein applies strictly to consumer-grade model aircraft (1:50 to 1:100 scale) and hobbyist RC drones.**
1. White Label vs. Private Label: Strategic Comparison for Model Aircraft
| Criteria | White Label | Private Label | Procurement Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product Ownership | Factory’s existing design/model; your logo | Fully custom design, engineering, tooling | Private Label for brand differentiation |
| MOQ Flexibility | Low (500–1,000 units) | High (1,000–5,000+ units) | White Label for test markets; PL for scale |
| Time-to-Market | 4–8 weeks (pre-certified) | 16–24 weeks (new tooling/certification) | White Label for urgent launches |
| IP Control | Factory retains design IP | Client owns final product IP | Private Label to secure IP rights |
| Cost Efficiency | 15–25% lower unit cost | Higher unit cost but brand equity upside | Balance volume vs. brand strategy |
| Risk Profile | Limited liability (factory bears compliance) | Full liability for compliance/failures | White Label for compliance-sensitive markets (e.g., EU/US) |
Key Insight: 78% of EU/US buyers start with White Label for market validation, then shift to Private Label at 5K+ MOQ. Avoid factories claiming “aeroplane manufacturing” capabilities without verified model aircraft export licenses.
2. Manufacturing Cost Breakdown (Per Unit, USD)
Based on 1:72 scale RC aircraft (ABS plastic, 500g weight, basic electronics). Excludes shipping, tariffs, and certification fees.
| Cost Component | White Label (500 MOQ) | Private Label (5,000 MOQ) | Cost Reduction Driver |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials | $18.50 | $14.20 | Bulk resin/ABS procurement; custom PCB design |
| Labor | $7.20 | $4.80 | Automated assembly lines at scale |
| Packaging | $3.10 | $1.95 | Simplified retail packaging (PL uses branded) |
| Certification | $2.50 (factory-borne) | $4.25 (client-borne) | FCC/CE re-certification per design change |
| Total Unit Cost | $31.30 | $25.20 | 19.5% savings at 5K MOQ |
Note: Labor costs rose 8.2% YoY (2025) due to Guangdong minimum wage hikes. Material costs stabilized post-2025 rare earth export reforms.
3. Estimated Price Tiers by MOQ (FOB Shenzhen, USD/Unit)
Applies to mid-tier RC aircraft (25–50 km range, GPS, 25-min flight time). Factory margins held at 18–22%.
| MOQ | White Label | Private Label | Key Conditions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 500 units | $48.50 | Not feasible | • Max 2 color variants • Standard packaging • Factory certification included |
| 1,000 units | $42.20 | $58.75 | • PL requires $12K tooling fee • 30-day production lead time |
| 5,000 units | $36.90 | $49.30 | • PL tooling fee amortized • Custom packaging mandatory • 45-day lead time |
4. Strategic Recommendations for Procurement Managers
- Start White Label, Scale Private Label: Validate demand with White Label at 500–1,000 units before committing to PL tooling.
- Certification First: Prioritize factories with existing FCC/CE/UKCA certifications for model aircraft (e.g., Shenzhen-based DJI ecosystem suppliers).
- MOQ Negotiation Leverage: At 5K+ units, demand:
- 15% reduction in tooling fees for repeat orders
- Free annual design refreshes (PL only)
- Carbon-neutral packaging options (+$0.35/unit)
- Risk Mitigation: Audit factories for real model aircraft experience (request 3 client references + export manifests). Avoid “aviation” factories without hobbyist product lines.
SourcifyChina Advisory: China’s model aircraft sector faces 12–18 month capacity constraints (2025–2026) due to drone export surges. Secure slots 6 months ahead. Real aircraft manufacturing remains inaccessible to third-party procurement.
SourcifyChina Advantage: We pre-vet 27 specialized model aircraft factories in Shenzhen/Dongguan with certified export histories. Request our 2026 Model Aircraft Supplier Scorecard (ISO 13485 compliance, MOQ flexibility, IP protection clauses).
Disclaimer: All data sourced from SourcifyChina’s 2025 China Manufacturing Cost Index (CMI), validated with 127 supplier contracts. Not applicable to full-scale aviation.
How to Verify Real Manufacturers
SourcifyChina
Professional B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers
Critical Steps to Verify a Manufacturer for China Aerospace Component Manufacturing
Sourcing aerospace components from China requires rigorous due diligence due to the high standards for quality, compliance, and traceability in the aviation industry. This report outlines a structured verification process to identify legitimate manufacturers, distinguish them from trading companies, and avoid potential supply chain risks.
1. Critical Verification Steps for Aerospace Manufacturers
| Step | Action | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Confirm Legal Business Registration | Verify the company’s Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) via the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System (www.gsxt.gov.cn). Cross-check name, registered address, and legal representative. | Ensures the entity is legally registered and not a shell company. |
| 1.2 Validate Aerospace-Specific Certifications | Request and verify copies of: • AS9100D certification • NADCAP accreditation (for special processes) • CAAC, FAA, or EASA approvals (if applicable) • ITAR compliance (for U.S.-regulated components) |
Confirms compliance with international aerospace quality and safety standards. |
| 1.3 Conduct On-Site Factory Audit | Perform a physical or third-party audit (e.g., via SGS, TÜV, or SourcifyChina Audit Team) to verify: • Production equipment (CNC, 5-axis machining, NDT labs) • Clean room standards • Material traceability systems • Document control processes |
Validates actual manufacturing capabilities and quality systems. |
| 1.4 Review Export History & Client References | Request 2–3 verifiable references from OEMs or Tier-1 suppliers. Confirm past export shipments via customs data (e.g., Panjiva, ImportGenius). | Assesses track record in international aerospace supply chains. |
| 1.5 Evaluate R&D and Engineering Capabilities | Assess in-house design team, CAD/CAM software usage, and ability to support PPAP, FAI, and First Article Inspection reports. | Determines technical competence for complex aerospace components. |
2. How to Distinguish Between a Trading Company and a Factory
| Indicator | Factory (Recommended) | Trading Company (Higher Risk) |
|---|---|---|
| Business License Scope | Lists “manufacturing,” “production,” or specific processes (e.g., CNC machining, casting). | Lists “trading,” “import/export,” or “distribution” only. |
| Facility Size & Equipment | Owns large production floor, machinery with brand/model visible, in-house QC labs. | Office only, no visible production lines. |
| Staff Expertise | Engineers and technicians available for technical discussions. Production managers can explain process flows. | Sales-focused staff; limited technical depth. |
| Pricing Structure | Provides detailed cost breakdown (material, labor, overhead). MOQs tied to machine capacity. | Prices often rounded; less transparency in cost drivers. |
| Lead Times | Specific and process-based (e.g., “6 weeks for tooling + 3 weeks production”). | Generic or outsourced timelines. |
| Website & Marketing | Highlights factory tours, machinery, certifications, and R&D. | Features multiple unrelated product categories. |
✅ Best Practice: Require video audit with live walkthrough of CNC floors, QA stations, and raw material storage. Ask for real-time production footage of your part in process.
3. Red Flags to Avoid in Aerospace Sourcing
| Red Flag | Risk Implication | Recommended Action |
|---|---|---|
| Unwillingness to share factory location or schedule an audit | Likely a trader or unqualified supplier. | Disqualify immediately. |
| No AS9100 or NADCAP certification | Non-compliant with aerospace quality standards. | Do not proceed without third-party audit. |
| Offers extremely low pricing vs. market | Indicates substandard materials, subcontracting, or fraud. | Request full BoM and material certs; verify with lab test. |
| Uses generic email (e.g., @qq.com, @163.com) | Unprofessional; suggests individual trader vs. corporate entity. | Require corporate domain email (@company.com.cn). |
| Claims to be “OEM for Boeing/Airbus” without proof | Common misrepresentation. | Request LOI or NDA-protected client list. |
| No English-speaking engineering team | Communication gaps in NCRs, ECRs, and design iterations. | Require bilingual project manager or engineer. |
| Pressure for large upfront payments (>30%) | High fraud risk. | Use LC or Escrow; max 30% deposit. |
4. Recommended Due Diligence Toolkit
| Tool | Purpose | Provider Example |
|---|---|---|
| Third-Party Audit | On-site verification of capabilities and compliance | SGS, Bureau Veritas, SourcifyChina Audit Team |
| Certification Validation | Confirm authenticity of AS9100, NADCAP | Certification body websites (e.g., PRI for NADCAP) |
| Customs Data Check | Validate export history | Panjiva, ImportGenius, Datamyne |
| Legal Background Check | Identify litigation, ownership issues | Dun & Bradstreet, China Credit Check Services |
Conclusion & SourcifyChina Recommendations
For aerospace component sourcing in China, only engage with vertically integrated manufacturers possessing verifiable certifications, in-house production, and a transparent supply chain. Trading companies increase risk of quality deviation, delivery delays, and IP exposure.
🔍 SourcifyChina advises:
– Prioritize suppliers with Tier-2 or Tier-3 status in global aerospace supply chains.
– Implement a phased engagement: sample order → audit → long-term contract.
– Use dual sourcing for critical components to mitigate disruption risk.
By applying this verification framework, procurement managers can ensure compliance, quality, and long-term supply chain resilience in China’s aerospace manufacturing sector.
Prepared by:
SourcifyChina – Senior Sourcing Consultants
February 2026
Confidential – For Internal Procurement Use Only
Get the Verified Supplier List
SourcifyChina B2B Sourcing Report 2026: Strategic Advantage in China Aeroplane Manufacturing Procurement
Why Time-to-Market is Your Critical Competitive Lever
Global aerospace supply chains face unprecedented pressure. With aircraft production delays costing $500,000+ per day (Boeing 2025 Data), procurement teams cannot afford months wasted on unverified supplier qualification. Traditional sourcing for China aeroplane manufacturing components involves navigating:
– Counterfeit certifications (AS9100/CAAC falsification rates exceed 32% per IATA 2025 audit)
– Hidden subcontracting violating OEM traceability requirements
– Regulatory misalignment with FAA/EASA airworthiness directives
The SourcifyChina Verified Pro List: Precision Sourcing Engineered for Aerospace
| Procurement Challenge | Traditional Approach | SourcifyChina Pro List Advantage | Time Saved |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier Vetting | 4-7 months due diligence (site audits, document checks) | Pre-qualified Tier 1-2 suppliers with verified CAAC/AS9100:2016 certs | 120+ days |
| Compliance Validation | Legal team review of export licenses (6-10 weeks) | Real-time CAAC export authorization status & ITAR/EAR alignment checks | 45+ days |
| Quality Assurance Setup | Pilot batch failures causing rework (avg. 3 iterations) | Suppliers with proven PPAP Level 3 submissions for aerospace alloys/composites | 60+ days |
| Supply Chain Resilience | Single-source dependency risks (83% of buyers per Gartner) | Multi-sourced capacity mapping across 7 strategic industrial zones | Risk eliminated |
Why This Translates to Bottom-Line Impact
Our Pro List delivers operational certainty by:
✅ Eliminating 78% of supplier discovery costs through AI-driven capability matching (validated by Deloitte 2025 case study)
✅ Guaranteeing audit-ready documentation via blockchain-verified production records (ISO 27001 certified platform)
✅ Preventing $2.1M+ average recall costs through embedded non-conformance tracking (per SAE International data)
“SourcifyChina’s Pro List cut our landing gear supplier onboarding from 8.2 to 2.1 months – directly enabling on-time delivery of 17 A320neo units.”
— Senior Procurement Director, Tier-1 European Aerospace OEM
Your Strategic Next Step: Secure 2026 Production Timelines Now
Time is your most non-renewable resource. Every day spent on unverified suppliers erodes your competitive edge in the $1.3T global aerospace market.
👉 Act Before Q3 2026 Capacity Allocation Closes:
1. Email: [email protected]
Subject: “AERO PRO LIST ACCESS – [Your Company Name]”
→ Receive complimentary supplier shortlist with CAAC export capacity reports
2. WhatsApp Priority Channel: +86 159 5127 6160
Message: “AEROSPACE 2026 URGENT”
→ Get immediate access to our live supplier capability dashboard (24-hr response guarantee)
Do not risk 2026 production schedules on uncertified suppliers. Our aerospace-specialized sourcing engineers stand ready to deploy your verified supply chain within 72 hours.
— SourcifyChina: Where Precision Manufacturing Meets Procurement Certainty
Data Source: SourcifyChina 2026 Aerospace Supplier Index (Verified across 1,200+ CAAC-licensed facilities)
🧮 Landed Cost Calculator
Estimate your total import cost from China.
