Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines

#31

Post by simplicio »

im_down_w_otp wrote: post #21

Sometimes I think we're in some weird version of a neo-Dark-Age where the ways to do everything amazing that we figured out how to do start to atrophy along the same path as those things being taken for granted. Because they're no longer considered amazing, so they're reprioritized as such, and we forget how hard they actually are to do as well as they need to be done. We sort of seem to end up with a built-in assump…

Eh? This is China's first time trying to build a commercial narrow body airliner, isn't it? So its not like they used to have the capability and forgot how to do it, they're developing it for the first time.

Re: Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines

#32

Post by jedberg »

simplicio wrote: post #31
im_down_w_otp wrote: post #21

Sometimes I think we're in some weird version of a neo-Dark-Age where the ways to do everything amazing that we figured out how to do start to atrophy along the same path as those things being taken for granted. Because they're no longer considered amazing, so they're reprioritized as such, and we forget how hard they actually are to do as well as they need to be done. We sort of seem to end up with a built-in assump…

Eh? This is China's first time trying to build a commercial narrow body airliner, isn't it? So its not like they used to have the capability and forgot how to do it, they're developing it for the first time.

In an ideal world, they would be able to start with all of the world's knowledge in this subject. Ie. they would start with where Boeing is now.

I think that is what OP is trying to get at.

Re: Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines

#33

Post by im_down_w_otp »

jedberg wrote: post #32
simplicio wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh? This is China's first time trying to build a commercial narrow body airliner, isn't it? So its not like they used to have the capability and forgot how to do it, they're developing it for the first time.

In an ideal world, they would be able to start with all of the world's knowledge in this subject. Ie. they would start with where Boeing is now. I think that is what OP is trying to get at.

Yes, this. Also, that even Boeing partially lost track of it along the way.

Re: Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines

#34

Post by rossjudson »

StreamBright wrote: post #27
starpilot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but COMAC has maybe 2 commercial jets that have entered service, Boeing has shuttled millions of people around the world safely for decades. We're riding an aviation news scare wave right now, so every burp and fart from the industry is getting reported. That said, there's no question that COMAC doesn't have the experience of Boeing or Airbus in designing production airliners. It's like trying to throw a bunch o…

I think the problems from Boeing mark a new era when you cannot rely anymore on a previous good record. The new structure how FAA approves airliners proven to be insufficient, for both the Dreamliner & MCAS with 737. If Boeing continues going down this path than it won't matter how long and how many passengers they shuttled.

There's figuring out what went wrong, and then there's figuring out why nobody thought anything was wrong. At least, nobody with the authority to do something about it.

Re: Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines

#35

Post by smiley1437 »

yummypaint wrote: post #29
im_down_w_otp wrote: post #21

Sometimes I think we're in some weird version of a neo-Dark-Age where the ways to do everything amazing that we figured out how to do start to atrophy along the same path as those things being taken for granted. Because they're no longer considered amazing, so they're reprioritized as such, and we forget how hard they actually are to do as well as they need to be done. We sort of seem to end up with a built-in assump…

I think this ties into the importance of living knowledge. Even the most meticulous notes must be interpreted and executed by someone, and there is no substitute for an experienced person. This has already happened with technologies like vacuum tubes. It isnt a simple matter of economics to restart production because much of the know-how must be rediscovered. In the absence of the original volume of demand that led t…

Even in something as important as nuclear weapons, the method of manufacturing a critical component was lost due to a broken chain of living knowledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOGBANK

Re: Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines

#36

Post by inferiorhuman »

simplicio wrote: post #31
im_down_w_otp wrote: post #21

Sometimes I think we're in some weird version of a neo-Dark-Age where the ways to do everything amazing that we figured out how to do start to atrophy along the same path as those things being taken for granted. Because they're no longer considered amazing, so they're reprioritized as such, and we forget how hard they actually are to do as well as they need to be done. We sort of seem to end up with a built-in assump…

Eh? This is China's first time trying to build a commercial narrow body airliner, isn't it? So its not like they used to have the capability and forgot how to do it, they're developing it for the first time.

This is China's first time trying to build a commercial narrow body airliner, isn't it?

Second – the ARJ21 was the first.

Re: Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines

#37

Post by redis_mlc »

blackrock wrote: post #26
starpilot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but COMAC has maybe 2 commercial jets that have entered service, Boeing has shuttled millions of people around the world safely for decades. We're riding an aviation news scare wave right now, so every burp and fart from the industry is getting reported. That said, there's no question that COMAC doesn't have the experience of Boeing or Airbus in designing production airliners. It's like trying to throw a bunch o…

This is exactly why it’s an embarrassment for Boeing. The fact that they have over 100 years of experience doing this, but yet, they made an elementary mistake. Two of their planes fell out of the sky! And at first, they blamed it on mediocre 3rd world country pilots. Then, the truth finally came out. Their design for the 737 MAX was junk. It was fatally flawed. It’s a flying death trap! They put on a larger sized en…

> And at first, they blamed it on mediocre 3rd world country pilots.

> Then, the truth finally came out. Their design for the 737 MAX was junk. It was fatally flawed. It’s a flying death trap!

Well, both are true.

The Indonesian investigators share blame between their pilots, mechanics and Boeing. Insiders expected this.

And Boeing forgot they were in the aerospace business.

Re: Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines

#38

Post by someperson »

> The engine miscalculation does not reflect a lack of theoretical understanding - China has been putting people in space for almost two decades. But it does illustrate the national aerospace manufacturer’s lack of experience in designing and building commercial aircraft.

Does this line in a Reuters article suprise anyone else as editorializing? What does COMAC's theoretical understanding have anything to do with the Long March rocket's manufacturer CALT (China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology)?

Re: Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines

#39

Post by zweep »

proc0 wrote: post #23
JackFr wrote: post #11

The recent failures of Boeing and this story underscore how very, very, very, very difficult it is to build a modern airliner. I'm hard pressed to come up with any other product which has as many complex interacting systems, requiring expertise in aerodynamics, materials science, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, software, UX design among other things, with very little margin for error. Honestly they're…

Indeed, one of the few exceptions is basically a faster version of the product that goes to space.

I'm not sure it's harder. More countries have successfully shot stuff into space than have build an airliner industry (US, Canada, France, Russia, Brazil).

Re: Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines

#40

Post by proc0 »

zweep wrote: post #39
proc0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, one of the few exceptions is basically a faster version of the product that goes to space.

I'm not sure it's harder. More countries have successfully shot stuff into space than have build an airliner industry (US, Canada, France, Russia, Brazil).

More so thinking of reusable spacecrafts like the Shuttle or Falcon rockets.
Post reply on HN