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

41–50 of 72 posts

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

#41

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

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 stand by the assertion that we could not go back to the moon even if we wanted to right now. They had slide rules instead of computers, but a passion and attention to detail that I very rarely see in any workplace these days. Maybe they were just less distracted than we are today by our current culture of distraction.

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

#42

Post by ReptileMan »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #2

I'm curious of COMAC's engineers are facing similar levels of pressure to cut corners as did Boeing's engineers while working on the 737 MAX. Does anyone know if / why we should expect COMAC to avoid repeating Boeing's institutional failures? EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: I'm not assuming that Boeing and COMAC face the same kinds of pressure. I'm asking if they face similar levels of pressure to have a design ready for lar…

Boeing were not cutting corner with MAX. They were trying to fit square peg in a round hole.

They tried to fit clean sheet design performance increase into age old mold. The fact that they mostly succeeded shows how amazing and talented engineers are there.

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

#44

Post by jacques_chester »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #41
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 stand by the assertion that we could not go back to the moon even if we wanted to right now. They had slide rules instead of computers, but a passion and attention to detail that I very rarely see in any workplace these days. Maybe they were just less distracted than we are today by our current culture of distraction.

They also had an effectively unlimited budget and hundreds of thousands of people to throw at the problem. You can often lay hands on some smart people under those conditions.

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

#45

Post by Already__Taken »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #43

Minor detail: C919 somehow strikes me as a non-impressive-sounding moniker. The sound of it is somehow "off". Does it "sound" better in Chinese? Not sure how to explain it better.

919 is one of the greatest Porsches ever so some marketing dept thinks its pretty good.

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

#46

Post by brenden2 »

hangonhn wrote: post #18
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…

This is sort of one of the metrics James Fallows outlined in his book, "China Airborne". In order to build a competitive airliner, it requires integration of so many discipline: metallurgy, software, aeronautics, engineering, etc. He argues that when China can build a competitive airliner, their development can be said to have to be on par with the West.

It's worth noting that Brazil[1] has been exporting aircraft for quite some time, although it's still regarded as 3rd world.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer

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

#47

Post by jvanderbot »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #41
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 stand by the assertion that we could not go back to the moon even if we wanted to right now. They had slide rules instead of computers, but a passion and attention to detail that I very rarely see in any workplace these days. Maybe they were just less distracted than we are today by our current culture of distraction.

NASA engineer here. I assure you we would be on the moon right now if it was a top priority in the Decadal Surveys. Its not. Recently, there's been a re-rush to the moon policy wise, and its been utterly delightful to watch astrobotic and several other companies step up to the plate so we dont have to. I was, just last week, working on a robotic payload for just one of those lunar landers, and my friends are working on even more ambitious ones.

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

#48

Post by jvanderbot »

someperson wrote: post #38

> 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…

"Someone in China could have done it, but the knowledge and experience is not as widespread as it is in other nations"

It gives context on how to interpret the two results. China can do great things, but it may not have the pipeline of engineers set up to enable widespread commercialization of those great things.

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

#49

Post by mikeyouse »

hangonhn wrote: post #18
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…

This is sort of one of the metrics James Fallows outlined in his book, "China Airborne". In order to build a competitive airliner, it requires integration of so many discipline: metallurgy, software, aeronautics, engineering, etc. He argues that when China can build a competitive airliner, their development can be said to have to be on par with the West.

Noah Smith has a theory that one of the best ways to develop a country that’s nearing an inflection point is to commit to building something like this. His example is a coastal African country committing to building an Aircraft Carrier. You would need to develop advanced capabilities across a dozen industries and it could realistically kickstart competition in every one of those areas as the local skills level up. It’s a provocative but plausible idea in my opinion.

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

#50

Post by inferiorhuman »

brenden2 wrote: post #46
hangonhn wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sort of one of the metrics James Fallows outlined in his book, "China Airborne". In order to build a competitive airliner, it requires integration of so many discipline: metallurgy, software, aeronautics, engineering, etc. He argues that when China can build a competitive airliner, their development can be said to have to be on par with the West.

It's worth noting that Brazil[1] has been exporting aircraft for quite some time, although it's still regarded as 3rd world. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer

That's almost cheating given Santos-Dumont's role in the origins of aviation. That said I don't think there are any modern, high bypass turbofans coming out of Brazil. China will need those if they hope to have a fully homegrown solution.
Post reply on HN