61–70 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
3rd world doesn’t mean poorly developed. It just means not 1st world (NATO countries) or 2nd (Soviet Bloc)
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…
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…
> any other product You can design a car with very little math. An airplane requires a lot of math. A spacecraft - everything is math, because the margins are awfully slim.
I'm not trying to make it seem like car design is a higher class of work than it is, but a car designed with little math isn't going to run in any meaningful manner.
Margins/thresholds for design scope exist everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> any other product You can design a car with very little math. An airplane requires a lot of math. A spacecraft - everything is math, because the margins are awfully slim.
>You can design a car with very little math. I'm not trying to make it seem like car design is a higher class of work than it is, but a car designed with little math isn't going to run in any meaningful manner. Margins/thresholds for design scope exist everywhere.
I've seen a lot of custom cars built. No math was used.
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…
All the more reason to avoid a single global government. Besides never being able to escape tyranny.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_numerology#Nine
tl;dr - Chinese pronunciation of 9 sounds similar to the Chinese word for longevity/long life.
You'd rarely see the number 4 used since that sounds like the pronunciation for the word 'death'.
8 is another popular number, synonymous with wealth.
Go into a parking lot with many Asian drivers - you can pick many of the Chinese drivers just by looking at their license plates and checking if they have one or more 8's or 9's (and lack of 4's) in the license plate.
Applies to many number-based items - phone numbers, highrises targeted at Asians may skip the 4th and 14th floors (haven't been in such buildings with more than 20 stories, but I'd assume the pattern would extend to any floor with a 4 in it - no idea about buildings with more than 39 floors)
Once you know about it, it's hard to unsee...
Perhaps this is just a growing pain, and they’ll eventually figure it all out. And it’s a good thing they did extensive testing and caught this now, while it was still in development. This is where you are supposed to catch these errors. Maybe this article was purposefully released to spread lies and defame COMAC’s reputation? Because that is what western journalism is pushing out these days about China. But the bott…
I agree with you, I've seen articles like this on hacker news for the past 5 years about how China is failing and China is unable to produce what North America is capable of. And the interesting thing is yes, at first they fail. Why should we expect them to get it right the first time? You learn with practice, and mistakes, and testing. I guarantee eventually they will have a functioning aircraft. This is normal proc…
Change since thing is Hyundai builds decent cars and a lot of other heavy industrial goods. And the United States has regressed because we believe the free market will provide while the third generation post war management class loots everything not nailed down.
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.
As a quick summary:
Boeing is commendable on pushing China’s aviation industry to adopt international safety standards, as well as certain key Chinese individuals that wanted China to improve themselves and be on par with international norms.
The key here, is that the international norms and safety standards were established by the FAA and American industries. But to be politically neutral and more palatable, it was rephrased as “international standards”.
But, Boeing’s goal was to improve the safety of China’s aviation industry, in order to avoid being caught up in bad press for one of their planes crashing, because of poor maintenance. And they figured by improving the safety, more people in China would fly, and thus buy more Boeing airplanes. It was a nice virtuous cycle for Boeing.
The interesting thing, is that it appears the student has now become the master, and China adopted all the international standards from Boeing, and added more of their own, that they became even stricter, and more rigorous in their safety inspections and protocols. And over the past 2 decades, their statistical safety record is better than their international peers.
And also, the other fascinating thing about the history of Boeing. Their first engineer was Wong Tsu, and he designed Boeing’s first commercial plane, the Model C water plane. This was instrumental to Boeing’s commercial success. Wong Tsu was born in China, and studied at MIT during the dawn of the airplane age. It seems the United States and China have a lot of connections going back in history.