After seeing all the bias reporting on Hong Kong coming out from our prestigious news outlets. It just amazes me there are still people believing their media would never be bias!
COMAC C919
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
After seeing all the bias reporting on Hong Kong coming out from our prestigious news outlets. It just amazes me there are still people believing their media would never be bias!
It just goes to show how gullible people are. And don't forget, the "free press" is non-bias. And how do we know that. Well the "free press" keeps telling us it is!
It's like the BBC, they keep telling us they are independent of government. But whereas CGTN is state controlled. The reason is because government appoints governors and fund the organisation!
Oh wait, isn't the BBC governor is appointed, and where's the funding come from? You can't make it up!
hahahaa, good one.
Yeah, I laughed while reading that comment and it's a long time ago I laughed the last time. Unbelievable with all the proof free on the internet. Like I said sheep mehhhh.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Some people chose to be stubborn and stupid at the same time. Their prejudice has blind them about the truth and reality of today's changing world that they can't believe a Communist China can do so much better than them.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Is there any C919 content left or is this the mutual bash western press thread now? If the later I think we already have a dozen of those, no need for more.
Ok guys, I think we better stop as people can be quite sensitive to our realistic view of the world.
We are talking about Reuters reporting on C919 which is relevant to the topic. Some people have problem with that and wants us to shut up and take Western MSM at face value. It's their problem and not ours.
Quickie
Colonel
And no confirmation from COMAC if this is really the case and more importantly we know how those biased media would spin what is a normal process of development into something of a major hiccup. This sort of thing shouldn't affect the pace of testing of the prototypes as the supposed modification on the engine would be handled by CFM International.
1 or 2 prototypes completed 1/5 of 4200 hours.
6 prototypes would be 3 or 4 times faster such that it may only take another 2 1/2 years of testing.
lcloo
Captain
"COMAC engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the plane’s twin engines in flight - known in the industry as loads - and sent inaccurate data to the engine manufacturer, CFM International, four people familiar with the matter told Reuters. As a result, the engine and its housing may both have to be reinforced, the people said, most likely at COMAC’s expense – though another source denied any modification."
1) What type of "load" is being referred to? The forces exerted on the engine pylon or the wing?
2) Why would engine need to be reinforced in regard to load? Remember this is the third LEAP engine variant CFM International is making. Don't CFM know better if there is discrepancy since they have made LEAP-A and LEAP-B for Airbus and Boeing.
3) Wouldn't CFM International found the irregularity in data provided by COMAC immediately? CFM International has provided similar LEAP engines to Airbus and Boeing 737, their engineers would know immediately if COMAC's data is out of tune with that of Airbus and Boeing. Correction would have been done immediately, no?
4) with regard to the engine housing i.e. the cowling, is it a high-tech piece of component that is difficult to modify in short time?
5) If the problem is critical, why was the 6th prototype proceeded to have the engines fitted and flights taken? More so the 6th prototype rolled out and took flight on schedule that was announced years ago?
6) As I know, there is a verification stage to audit all data calculated to make sure they are accurate before accepting them for integration into the overall R & D data base.
Finally, please take a few minute do a google search on "Controversies in Reuters News Reporting".
1) What type of "load" is being referred to? The forces exerted on the engine pylon or the wing?
2) Why would engine need to be reinforced in regard to load? Remember this is the third LEAP engine variant CFM International is making. Don't CFM know better if there is discrepancy since they have made LEAP-A and LEAP-B for Airbus and Boeing.
3) Wouldn't CFM International found the irregularity in data provided by COMAC immediately? CFM International has provided similar LEAP engines to Airbus and Boeing 737, their engineers would know immediately if COMAC's data is out of tune with that of Airbus and Boeing. Correction would have been done immediately, no?
4) with regard to the engine housing i.e. the cowling, is it a high-tech piece of component that is difficult to modify in short time?
5) If the problem is critical, why was the 6th prototype proceeded to have the engines fitted and flights taken? More so the 6th prototype rolled out and took flight on schedule that was announced years ago?
6) As I know, there is a verification stage to audit all data calculated to make sure they are accurate before accepting them for integration into the overall R & D data base.
Finally, please take a few minute do a google search on "Controversies in Reuters News Reporting".