Chinese Engine Development

stibyssip · Dec 8, 2016

Engineer said:
So there is an incentive to theft when the cops not around then. In other words, incentive goes both ways. There is incentive to do something, and there is incentive not to do it. You try to highlight one while conveniently ignoring the other. That's called
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, another logical fallacy.

You claimed that China has an incentive to over report its military capability, but China has an explicit interest in under reporting its military capability as pointed out in post #4056. Your argument simply does not work, because you are unable to show one is more likely than another.

Denying that strong incentives are there (I've listed them) because there might also be disincentives (while suggesting any) is the real cherry picking. Your line of argument here is profoundly hypocritical.

Engineer said:
Your argument is also irrelevant, because it is not about the state of WS-10.

Feels like the 5 or 7th time I'm saying this, my argument was relevant to the debate I was in, I KNOW it wasn't relevant the the thread. THe fact it's wasn't relevant to the thread doesn't make it irrelevant to the points I were trying to make. You should revisit how an argument works.

Engineer said:
Certain poster's skepticism is not reasonable because it is based on ad hominem. He attacked an entity rather than the points under contention. It's that simple. Your perception on whether the ad hominem is justifiable is irrelevant, because it is still an ad hominem.

Given the conflict between objectivity and self-interest for how the Chinese government manages media, skepticism at optimistic claims is not undeserved.

Engineer said:
Your defense of his post means you agree with his conclusion. It is then reasonable for others to ask you for proofs to support his conclusion, specifically on how the report is inaccurate.

What was his conclusion? He simply expressed doubt that a piece of reporting was credible. Because there are indeed incentives to inflate perception, given the conflict between objectivity and self-interest for how the Chinese government manages media, it's a fair demand to want optimistic reports thoroughly verified.

Engineer said:
Others have also reasonably provided their views on why the report is accurate. Instead of addressing the points, you made more rants about media bias, which got you the antagonism you deserved.

What fair point did I not address? Which exact part of my argument didn't have relevance to the claims of other forum members debating with me? Also, why do you feel the need to antagonize me further? To gain some ego points?

stibyssip · Dec 8, 2016

Hendrik_2000 said:
These are another off the cuff statement with no proof. China has highly developed automobile industry with all kind of Turbo charge engine. They have developed turbo charge engine for Automobile, Aircraft and ships

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In addition, the major Chinese automotive turbocharger manufacturers e,g. Hunan Tyen Machinery, Kangyue Technology, Wuxi Weifu High-technology have also stepped up financing and capacity expansion, aggressively expanding gasoline engine turbocharger market, in an attempt to improve their competitiveness.

As the largest Chinese turbocharger manufacturer, Hunan Tyen Machinery has an annual capacity of 700,000 turbochargers, of which, gasoline engine turbocharger capacity has reached 100,000 units/a and that of the projects under construction totaled 200,000 units/a (going into operation in 2016). Currently, the company has achieved small-batch delivery to Mianyang Xinchen Engine, and will very likely supply goods in small batch to Chang'an and Great Wall in the second half of 2015.

Kangyue Technology, a major turbocharger manufacturer in China, embarked on turbocharger expansion project in 2014. Once reaching design capacity, it will see an additional capacity of 300,000 units/a. In March 2015, the company announced to construct gasoline engine turbocharger R&D and key components manufacturing technology upgrading project. It is to be put into operation in 2018, when the company will have an additional capacity of 300,000 units/a

It's good to look further into the state of turbo dev in China, but you can't deny that turbos are another important area where there is a substantial gap between CHinese industrial capabilities and the state-of-the-art. There are many places where you can learn about this, it's in fact part of the article under discussion.

stibyssip · Dec 8, 2016

Quickie said:
Or they don't want to since turbo charged engine is inherently less long lasting and has shorter TBO than a non-turbo charged one? Furthermore, you don't have to built everything yourself. The rest of world's drones are using the same engine and you chose to gripe about the Chinese using it and not their own engine?

The rest of the world also has less strategic animosities with the West, most of the world doesn't have quite the autarkic industrial policy China does. There are many reasons for why China should have a good handle on making the powerplant in drones they want to sell, but that's not the discussion here.

And why shouldn't China be able to build its own turbos, better turbos than the Austrians? THis is exactly an example of a tech-intensive parts of the value chain China must master if it wants to become an advanced economy and keep raising the standard of living.

Quickie · Dec 8, 2016

stibyssip said:
The rest of the world also has less strategic animosities with the West, most of the world doesn't have quite the autarkic industrial policy China does. There are many reasons for why China should have a good handle on making the powerplant in drones they want to sell, but that's not the discussion here.

And why shouldn't China be able to build it's own turbos, better turbos than the Austrians?

Who really knows they did or didn't? China seems to be choosing hot bulb engines for its heavier drones. It could be that turbo-charged engines are inherently less reliable which may explain the many U.S.A.F drones' crashes?

Hendrik_2000 · Dec 8, 2016

stibyssip said:
The rest of the world also has less strategic animosities with the West, most of the world doesn't have quite the autarkic industrial policy China does. There are many reasons for why China should have a good handle on making the powerplant in drones they want to sell, but that's not the discussion here.

And why shouldn't China be able to build its own turbos, better turbos than the Austrians? THis is exactly an example of a tech-intensive parts of the value chain China must master if it wants to become an advanced economy and keep raising the standard of living.

China was late comer in industrialization . Engine technology depend on material science and close tolerance to have high efficiency. Both of those technology require a long time of development.It take the west hundred of year to achieve it . The European had a head start with metallurgy and machining skill tradition of "lehrlinge"(apprenticeship). Which is still in practice until today. They have been building engine for hundred of year. Sultzer, Wartsilla, Daimler Benz, Pielstick, Steel manufacturer of Krupp, Sandvik, Thyssen, British steel, etc

Since China is under Technical embargo she has no access to those skill and technology. The political chaos is of 60's and 70's doesn't help either.
So she has to develop their own technology. So basically China can built engine with 90% of comparable state the art. The last 10% will come in time when their machining skill and material technology improve.
Not bad for beginner

Engineer · Dec 8, 2016

stibyssip said:
Denying that strong incentives are there (I've listed them) because there might also be disincentives (while suggesting any) is the real cherry picking. Your line of argument here is profoundly hypocritical.

Well, since you claim my argument is hypocritical, that means you are admitting your own guilt in cherry picking. I rest my case.

stibyssip said:
Feels like the 5 or 7th time I'm saying this, my argument was relevant to the debate I was in, I KNOW it wasn't relevant the the thread. THe fact it's wasn't relevant to the thread doesn't make it irrelevant to the points I were trying to make. You should revisit how an argument works.

For the fifth or seventh time, your argument isn't relevant. The fact that it is off topic is a symptom of the problem.

stibyssip said:
Given the conflict between objectivity and self-interest for how the Chinese government manages media, skepticism at optimistic claims is not undeserved.

What was his conclusion? He simply expressed doubt that a piece of reporting was credible.

Your perception of whether ad hominem is deserving does not change the fact that ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Certain member asserted the report was not credible, but he has provided no evidence to support that conclusion; neither have you.

stibyssip said:
Because there are indeed incentives to inflate perception, given the conflict between objectivity and self-interest for how the Chinese government manages media, it's a fair demand to want optimistic reports thoroughly verified.

So far, no one has evidence proving that to be the case regarding the news article on WS-10.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is not the same as providing evidence, but one can start providing evidence by citing X report on Y figure to dispute paragraph Z of the news article.

stibyssip said:
What fair point did I not address? Which exact part of my argument didn't have relevance to the claims of other forum members debating with me?

See above.

taxiya · Dec 8, 2016

Engineer said:
So far, no one has evidence proving that to be the case regarding the news article on WS-10.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is not the same as providing evidence, but one can start providing evidence by citing X report on Y figure to dispute paragraph Z of the news article.

Thanks Engineer, "Appealing to motive" was the term that I was trying to say when I used "motivation in the court of law" analogue. You are very knowledgeable.

broadsword · Dec 8, 2016

stibyssip said:
It's good to look further into the state of turbo dev in China, but you can't deny that turbos are another important area where there is a substantial gap between CHinese industrial capabilities and the state-of-the-art. There are many places where you can learn about this, it's in fact part of the article under discussion.

Rotax grew up making engines for go-karts and lawn mowers. In China, although the top motorcycle manufacturers make their own engines too, they do not supply to the drone makers, probably because the market is not open to them - yet.

Until then, the state-owned institutes will continue to be the sole supplier and developer. Then it is rightly so for the government and the media to continue with the optimistic encouragement to them in their R&D. They do not have the experience and expertise of the likes of Rotax and Yamaha, but to diminish their achievements in public is not going to contribute to their efforts. Not only am I all for it, other governments would act similarly to their own glcs of such nature.

superdog · Dec 8, 2016

t2contra said:
Rotax grew up making engines for go-karts and lawn mowers. In China, although the top motorcycle manufacturers make their own engines too, they do not supply to the drone makers, probably because the market is not open to them - yet.

Who tells you they don't?

Motorcycle manufacturer:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Car manufacturer:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

broadsword · Dec 8, 2016

Great to know that! There goes my disappointment.

Chinese Engine Development

stibyssip

New Member

stibyssip

New Member

stibyssip

New Member

Quickie

Colonel

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Engineer

Major

taxiya

Brigadier

broadsword

Brigadier

superdog

Junior Member

broadsword

Brigadier