Did China Dismantle an Airbus A320 to Build the C919? What the Evidence Shows (and Doesn’t)

Allegations have circulated for years that, in the late 1990s or early 2000s, an Airbus A320 delivered to China “disappeared,” was secretly stripped down, and became a reference model for COMAC’s C919. The rumor, sometimes linked to comments by a former Airbus executive who allegedly described it as a Chinese “ghost plane,” suggests the jet was dismantled so engineers could copy and learn from its structure and systems.

Despite its persistence, no authoritative evidence has ever substantiated the claim. Aviation trade outlets like Aviation Week and FlightGlobal, as well as court filings or Airbus statements, contain no record of such an incident. Instead, the story tends to surface on blogs, forums, and social media, making it more folklore than proven fact.

What is documented is that the C919 directly targets the same market segment as the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737. Unsurprisingly, it shares a similar configuration, capacity, and mission profile. Industry analysts consistently describe the C919 as a conservative, A320-class narrowbody that relies heavily on international suppliers for engines, avionics, landing gear, and flight systems. Publicly available supply contracts with CFM International (LEAP-1C engines), Collins, Honeywell, Thales, Liebherr, Moog, and Parker all underscore the point: the jet’s DNA is stitched together from licensed Western systems, not from a clandestine teardown.

Business publications like Business Insider note the C919’s resemblance to Airbus and Boeing models but stop short of claiming theft. Policy analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) frame COMAC’s challenge not as groundbreaking design, but as execution—certification, scaling production, and building global trust. This again points to the C919 as a me-too competitor, not a revolutionary or stolen architecture.

The “ghost plane” rumor also echoes another oft-repeated story: that in the 1970s French engineers secretly dismantled a Boeing 707 to inform development of the Airbus A300. Yet, aerospace historians and program records show the A300 emerged from a well-documented multinational effort under Airbus Industrie, with open industrial partnerships across France, Germany, the UK, and Spain. Its development involved clear work-sharing agreements and suppliers—not a covert reverse-engineering program.

In both cases—the A320-to-C919 tale and the 707-to-A300 legend—the lack of verifiable documentation suggests these narratives serve more as cautionary parables about intellectual property risk than as factual histories.

That said, China’s aerospace ambitions are real, and so are Western concerns about technology transfer. The C919’s emergence fits into Beijing’s broader drive to reduce dependence on Airbus and Boeing while building a homegrown alternative. Even without a vanished A320, the narrative reflects anxieties about how China acquires and digests foreign technology to accelerate its industrial rise.

The lack of proof shows that there is no credible evidence that China dismantled an A320 to build the C919. The aircraft’s resemblance to the A320 and 737 is market-driven and supplier-dependent, not proof of a ghost plane. Still, the persistence of the rumor underscores the geopolitical mistrust surrounding China’s aviation ambitions and the delicate balance between cooperation and competition in global aerospace.

What the Research Shows

Design Parallels: The C919 is positioned squarely in the same category as the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 MAX. Aviation experts have noted that its dimensions, seating capacity, and performance targets closely mirror those of the A320neo. This has led to speculation that China may have reverse-engineered aspects of Western aircraft, but no verified reports confirm the dismantling of an actual A320 for this purpose. 

Foreign Components: The C919 relies heavily on Western technology, about 90%. Its LEAP-1C engines are built by CFM International (a GE–Safran joint venture), and avionics, landing gear, and other systems come from companies like Honeywell and Collins Aerospace. As Air Data News reported, “A large part of its suppliers are Western… the Leap-1C engine powers both the 737 and the A320neo”.

Geopolitical Tensions: In 2025, the Trump administration suspended exports of key components to COMAC, including the LEAP-1C and CF34 engines, which has severely impacted production. This highlights China’s vulnerability in its aerospace ambitions and underscores the importance of domestic alternatives.

Strategic Intent: COMAC’s strategy to challenge Airbus and Boeing mirrors Airbus’s own rise in the 1970s. As AirGuide notes, “China’s strategy to market the COMAC C919 mirrors the playbook Airbus used… leveraging massive state backing, subsidized financing, and a huge captive home market”.

No Evidence of Dismantling

While reverse engineering and industrial espionage are often discussed in aerospace circles, no reputable source has confirmed that China physically dismantled an Airbus A320 to develop the C919. The similarities likely stem from benchmarking and design convergence rather than direct disassembly.

China has a documented history of developing aircraft that closely resemble earlier Western or Russian designs. A notable example is the Shanghai Y-10 (Yun-10), a four-engined narrow-body jet airliner developed in the 1970s by the Shanghai Aircraft Research Institute. Mainstream aviation sources have long noted that the Y-10’s configuration drew heavily on the Boeing 707-320C, even using Pratt & Whitney JT3D engines. However, that lineage arose from visible configuration borrowing and publicly sourced components—not from any proven clandestine teardown. Designed to Federal Aviation Regulations as a domestic program, the Y-10 illustrates how China’s early large-aircraft efforts mirrored successful Western models without direct evidence of industrial espionage.

Bottom line:

The “A320 ghost plane” reverse-engineering story remains unsubstantiated by primary, high-quality sources.
The C919 is indeed an A320/737-class aircraft with similar dimensions and systems philosophy, built with large inputs from Western suppliers; that reflects market convergence and supplier globalization more than confirmed theft.
The A300 origin story as a secret 707 teardown is also unsupported by credible histories; Airbus’s early development is extensively documented as a coordinated European program.

Did France Really Dismantle a Boeing 707 to Develop the Airbus A300?

For decades, whispers have circulated that French engineers secretly dismantled a Boeing 707 in the 1970s to help birth the Airbus A300. The tale mirrors other aerospace rumors, like the so-called “ghost A320” in China, and speaks to the fascination with how emerging competitors catch up to dominant players. But unlike folklore, the reality is more complex—and more interesting.

There is no publicly documented evidence that France literally stripped a 707 to reverse-engineer it for Airbus by its predecessor Sud-Aviation, the builders of the Caravelle. No official records, program histories, or industry investigations confirm such an act. Yet the rumor persists because of the context: in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Europe was under enormous pressure to break into a market dominated by Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Lockheed. The Boeing 707 had redefined global air travel, and its technical and commercial success set the benchmark for what Airbus Industrie, founded in 1970, would need to match.

French aerospace ambitions were already at full throttle. Concorde, developed in partnership by Sud-Aviation of France and with the UK’s British Aerospace, had taken its first flight in 1969 and demonstrated that French engineers could operate at the frontier of aerodynamics, structures, and propulsion. But Concorde was a niche prestige project. The commercial breakthrough had to be a widebody workhorse—something that could go head-to-head with Boeing. The A300, launched in 1972, was designed to do exactly that.

Did Sud-Aviation, Later Airbus, Teams Pull Apart a 707 in Secret?

Possibly not in the literal sense. What is plausible—and indeed common practice in aerospace—was intensive benchmarking. Engineers studied every available Boeing airframe, from photographs and technical manuals to airline operator feedback and leased aircraft. Military and civil authorities often bought or borrowed second-hand jets for evaluation. This was not espionage but industry standard: know your rival’s systems integration, structures, avionics, and manufacturing flow before you compete.

And design influences are unmistakable. The A300’s fuselage cross-section, underwing engine pod layout, and avionics philosophy clearly reflected lessons from the Boeing 707’s proven formula. But the A300 was far from a direct copy. In fact, its size and cabin cross-section were closer to the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and Lockheed L-1011 TriStar—minus the third engine. By committing to a twin-engine widebody configuration at a time when Boeing’s 747 jumbo and the DC-10/L-1011 tri-jets dominated long-haul markets, Airbus made a bold bet on efficiency over sheer capacity. That decision, once seen as a gamble, proved strategically prescient. The A300 established Airbus as a credible competitor and set the stage for decades of design philosophy centered on lower operating costs, technological innovation, and market adaptability.

No Proof, but Persistent Rumors: COMAC and Airbus Industrial Espionage Stories

Rather than a literal teardown, the “dismantling” story can be seen as a metaphor for how engineers deconstructed Boeing’s success—studying its design philosophy, strategy, and technology to chart their own path. In the 1970s, French engineers certainly dismantled Boeing’s dominance—but not by secretly stripping a single 707. Instead, they deconstructed Boeing’s success through close study of its market strategy, design philosophy, and manufacturing techniques. The Airbus A300 emerged as both a response and a departure: it absorbed lessons from the 707 era while pioneering the world’s first twin-engine widebody, a distinctly European path that emphasized efficiency over size.

More recently, similar claims have surfaced around China’s COMAC C919, with persistent rumors that an Airbus A320 delivered to China was dismantled to serve as a template. While no verifiable evidence has confirmed a “ghost A320” teardown, the narrative resonates because it reflects a recognizable truth: every new challenger in aviation studies, benchmarks, and sometimes reverse-engineers what came before.

In that sense, the 707 and A320 stories persist not as proof of outright theft, but as symbols of a deeper reality in aerospace history: the determination of European and Chinese manufacturers to challenge American industrial dominance. Progress in aviation has always begun with close scrutiny—whether through teardowns, engineering analysis, or strategic benchmarking. The enduring myth of a dismantled jet highlights an important truth: innovation often starts by dissecting the achievements of past giants before moving beyond them to create something new.

Sources: AirGuide Business airguide.info, bing.com, Airways, Simple Flying, Business Insider, aviationweek.com