
Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines - inferiorhuman
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-aviation-comac-insight/chinas-bid-to-challenge-boeing-and-airbus-falters-idUSKBN1Z905N
======
JackFr
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 kind of
amazing.

~~~
hangonhn
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.

~~~
brenden2
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer)

~~~
TylerE
3rd world doesn’t mean poorly developed.

It just means not 1st world (NATO countries) or 2nd (Soviet Bloc)

~~~
juahan
So for example Finland and Sweden are third world countries?

~~~
TylerE
Yes.

Also Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, and almost all of the Middle East.

------
im_down_w_otp
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 assumption that absolutely
everything can be commoditized just because we're used to having it around,
not because it is actually able to be commoditized effectively.

~~~
yummypaint
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 to the first generation of
tube engineers, it may be lost forever. There are some niche high power RF
devices still using tubes from decades ago.

~~~
smiley1437
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOGBANK)

------
KFC_Manager
A lot of the parts in these planes + the automation supplied to build the
planes are from companies owned by western companies. China is trying to own
more parts of the process (Broetje acquisition for automation, things like
Kuka and other industrial companies are getting bought up by Chinese
companies).

[https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/chinas-comac-
to...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/chinas-comac-to-challenge-
boeing-and-airbus)

------
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)?

~~~
jvanderbot
"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.

------
Gravityloss
When talking about the duopoly, the article omits Sukhoi Superjet, though it
seems to not be an easy alternative airliner:
[https://www.airportspotting.com/cityjets-sukhoi-
superjets/](https://www.airportspotting.com/cityjets-sukhoi-superjets/)

The comments on the page are really good. It seems the plane itself was good
but simple lack of culture of fast spare parts delivery made the planes
unprofitable.

------
woodandsteel
I wonder if the fact that Comac is a state-owned company has anything to do
with these problems. From what I have read, Chinese state-owned enterprises
are inefficient and can stay in business only with major help from the
government. But maybe Comac is an exception.

------
Florin_Andrei
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.

~~~
johnny-lee
see the wikipedia entry on Chinese numerology, esp. number 9.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_numerology#Nine](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...

~~~
Florin_Andrei
OMG, that explains so many things.

Thanks!

------
tus88
What's a Comac?

~~~
wereHamster
Literally the first paragraph of the article:

> BEIJING/PARIS (Reuters) - Development of China’s C919 single-aisle plane,
> already at least five years behind schedule, is going slower than expected,
> a dozen people familiar with the program told Reuters, as the state-owned
> Commercial Aircraft Corporation (COMAC) struggles with a range of technical
> issues that have severely restricted test flights.

~~~
tus88
I don't bother reading things unless I can confirm my interest in the article.
I can't do that with unknown acronyms.

~~~
StreamBright
I guess you never read any article about any startup then.

------
NextHendrix
Very annoying when you choose to reject cookies in the optional cookie consent
menu and the page refreshes to ask you again

~~~
dmitrygr
well, if they cannot store a cookie, how would they remember that you said "no
cookies" ?

~~~
Skunkleton
There should be an option to only reject some cookies. No to tracking, yes to
chocolate chip.

------
DoofusOfDeath
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 large-scale roll-out.

~~~
JackFr
Based on the very different commercial, cultural and political constraints
they operate under, I would imagine any institutional failure would probably
be unique to COMAC and certainly not a repeat of Boeing.

------
blackrock
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 bottom line, is that COMAC didn’t have 2 of their planes fall out of
the sky, like Boeing did.

~~~
thisisnico
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 process, with a narrative western spin.

~~~
inferiorhuman
_Why should we expect them to get it right the first time?_

This isn't their first time (the ARJ21 was). Will COMAC succeed where
Mitsubishi (Japan), Bombardier (Canada), Sukhoi (Russia), and Lockheed (USA)
have failed? Maybe. But China's set a deadline of 2025 to have their own
homegrown product in service and it's doubtful that specific goal will be met.

The western aerospace industry is hardly betting against China here. I think
Airbus was expecting COMAC to be competitive by 2020. Hell, a huge part of the
reason that the 737 MAX exists today is that the Boeing CEO thought China was
their biggest threat.

~~~
thisisnico
Bombardier (Canada) failed because they had produced a better plane, and
boeing made efforts to make it impossible to sell in America. So they've
teamed up with Airbus to be able to access the market.

