Chinese Engine Development

Bltizo said:

I've been here as long as you have, we've both seen the sheer variety of PR statements and events surrounding various projects. Some are very useful and illuminating, while there are also many which are useless and shed no light on anything.

Click to expand...

Then why are you here with useless words instead of finding those 'many' useless PR events that shed no lights to help you build an arguments ?

Bltizo said:

It seems that what you are irritated at, is the notion that CJ-1000 will likely face challenges and delays in its development cycle.

Click to expand...

Not at all, look at what I said about the 'other smart guy'. I'm annoyed at mumbo jumbo and actually hoping you can bring up something new and concrete about CJ1000 to back up your empty words.

Schumacher said:

Then why are you here with useless words instead of finding those 'many' useless PR events that shed no lights to help you build an arguments ?

Click to expand...

Fighting words, do calm yourself.
As for evidence, I actually think the burden would be more on you to prove that all PR events are useful... but sure I'll play a little.
PR events generally allow us to determine whether a project exists and what stage of development a project may be at. They do not always give us performance parameters (such as in this case for CJ-1000), they tell do not us projected timelines for service (such as in every case of every naval ship being launched for the Chinese Navy), nor do we even sometimes know if a project is actually under development or not (such as various models displayed by various institutes and companies at various Chinese airshows over the years).

You might consider the lack of such information at PR events to still be useful or even "excellent", but I do not.

I would also like to refer back to my original point about PR events which is where our current discussion arose from: "PR events actually are not entirely useful for determining the progress or lack of progress of a particular programme -- it depends on what a specific event is about, and what the specific awards are for."

So that is what I mean by "usefulness".

Not at all, look at what I said about the 'other smart guy'. I'm annoyed at mumbo jumbo and actually hoping you can bring up something new and concrete about CJ1000 to back up your empty words.

Click to expand...

I have nothing new to add, because my statement and position is designed to be inherently limited.

I assume when you say "not at all," it means that you agree with my premises supporting my statement that it is not unreasonable to say we should be cautious about CJ-1000 development future, and that you agree they will likely face challenges and possibly delays? If so, then I have no further issue with you.

Guys, why continue the argument over this? Brass Tax as I see it: Schumacher posted an info piece about awards issued for progress with CJ1000. Bltizo posted a disclaimer in reply, to be cautious about what progress can be inferred.

I think the issue Schumacher takes here Bltizo is that, other than your warning (which let's be honest, most long-time China followers do not need), you did not add much to the topic and came across as somehow challenging Schumacher's contribution.

Can we just take Schumacher's OP, add it to our existing knowledge of CJ1000 development to date, and move on?

/End Conflict Resolution Post

Zool said:

Guys, why continue the argument over this? Brass Tax as I see it: Schumacher posted an info piece about awards issued for progress with CJ1000. Bltizo posted a disclaimer in reply, to be cautious about what progress can be inferred.

I think the issue Schumacher takes here Bltizo is that, other than your warning (which let's be honest, most long-time China followers do not need), you did not add much to the topic and came across as somehow challenging Schumacher's contribution.

Can we just take Schumacher's OP, add it to our existing knowledge of CJ1000 development to date, and move on?

/End Conflict Resolution Post

Click to expand...

If that is the case, then it is unfortunate because I was not challenging the article as a contribution at all -- in fact, I said in post #3295

It's still a useful article to tell us what their planned timescale and technological goal level is, but we should also be realistic about whether they can achieve it.

Click to expand...

In other words, I made it quite clear that the article itself is useful for giving us a sense of where they are at and where they want to be, but I was also adding a caveat that we should be realistic about whether they're able to achieve it, given the difficulty faced by China in the past and also other more advanced nations in developing competitive commercial turbofans.

If he was indeed aware of the fact that China would likely face difficulties in developing CJ-1000 and that we should be cautious (like you said, as most long term PLA followers would logically know), then simply acknowledging it two or three pages ago would have avoided this entire fruitless discussion.

Bltizo said:

Fighting words, do calm yourself.
As for evidence, I actually think the burden would be more on you to prove that all PR events are useful... but sure I'll play a little.
................

Click to expand...

Calm myself ? LOL. You added that line because you want to show you're winning the argument ?
And sneaking in the word 'all' PR again ?

This is a good forum & you're a senior member. More substance, less playing games please.
And nope, the burden is not on me. It's on you vs the state firms & PLA which put out the PR.
Like I said earlier, these are people who put billions where their mouths are & much smarter than you. If you think you have more credibility than them, well you're living in another universe.
But having said that, they are not gods, they can be wrong. To cast doubts on them however, you'll need more than empty words, opinions, feelings. That's why I tell you to start working finding concrete info.

Bltizo said:

.......
I assume when you say "not at all," it means that you agree with my premises supporting my statement that it is not unreasonable to say we should be cautious about CJ-1000 development future........

Click to expand...

'Not at all' referred to not being irritated at someone who brings bad news as long as he can back it up, not just to attract attention by saying something ie pedantic.

Guys ... Enough !

Schumacher said:

Calm myself ? LOL. You added that line because you want to show you're winning the argument ?

Click to expand...

No, but your use of constant "lols" in capitalized letters and constantly describing my words as useless, and then accusing me of looking for attention(?) are a little bit passive aggressive if not outright aggressive verging on personal attacks.

And sneaking in the word 'all' PR again ?

This is a good forum & you're a senior member. More substance, less playing games please.
And nope, the burden is not on me. It's on you vs the state firms & PLA which put out the PR.
Like I said earlier, these are people who put billions where their mouths are & much smarter than you. If you think you have more credibility than them, well you're living in another universe.
But having said that, they are not gods, they can be wrong. To cast doubts on them however, you'll need more than empty words, opinions, feelings. That's why I tell you to start working finding concrete info.

Click to expand...

You asked me to describe examples of where PR events were not useful, and I described them to you on the basis of how I defined usefulness.
I'm not sure what other concrete information you are looking for.

'Not at all' referred to not being irritated at someone who brings bad news as long as he can back it up, not just to attract attention by saying something ie pedantic.

Click to expand...

Look, I've continuously restated my position again and again, which I'm going to copy and paste from my post 3319:

China has faced substantial difficulties in developing turbofans in its past, and even advanced western companies have faced delays in their new projects as well. Now China is trying to develop a top end commercial turbofan indigenously. I think all this together makes my suggestion that we should be cautious about the CJ-1000's future development, to be a very reasonable statement.

Click to expand...

It is a suggestion of caution, and I do not think it is an unreasonable remark given that we have both been watching the China's development of engines for years and we both know the difficulties they've faced.
This entire multi-page long tail chasing could have been avoided simply if you had acknowledged that it would be plausible for CJ-1000 to experience delays and challenges in its future development. The fact that even now you do not acknowledge it leads me to the only conclusion that you must believe CJ-1000's development will be completely smooth (which I too hope they will be able to do, but I do not believe it), or that our debate has raged on for so many posts that acknowledging it would be seen as a defeat on your part.

In which case, I think I've made my point enough times for you and everyone else to see, and I'm concluding my participation here.

I will let you have the last word if you wish.

Bltizo said:

...
You asked me to describe examples of where PR events were not useful, and I described them to you on the basis of how I defined usefulness.
I'm not sure what other concrete information you are looking for.

Click to expand...

Concrete info refers to instances of info from those PR which turned out not true.

Bltizo said:

........
The fact that even now you do not acknowledge it leads me to the only conclusion that you must believe CJ-1000's development will be completely smooth (which I too hope they will be able to do, but I do not believe it), or that our debate has raged on for so many posts that acknowledging it would be seen as a defeat on your part.
...............

Click to expand...

'Completely' smooth ? As if any projects of any complexity will be 'completely' smooth ? Why would you want such an acknowledgement anyway if not for merely seeking attention ?
You engage a reputable contractor for a project who do all the right stuffs to make sure it'll be a success, but you need him to acknowledge first it may not go 'completely' smooth ?
You go to a five star restaurant, you don't see anything wrong but you want the owner to first acknowledge that your experience may not be 'completely' satisfying ? ...... sigh

I have often found that in situations like this, having a quiet word in private is often surprisingly easier for people to resolve their differences and reach an understanding as opposed to a public argument.

I think psychologically speaking, knowing that there is an audience means at least part of our brains are thinking about how our words and actions might be perceived by onlookers, rather than allowing us to focus all our attention on the dispute itself.

Just putting it out there guys.

plawolf said:

I have often found that in situations like this, having a quiet word in private is often surprisingly easier for people to resolve their differences and reach an understanding as opposed to a public argument.

I think psychologically speaking, knowing that there is an audience means at least part of our brains are thinking about how our words and actions might be perceived by onlookers, rather than allowing us to focus all our attention on the dispute itself.

Just putting it out there guys.

Click to expand...

Heh, I don't know about you, but once I get into debates that begin to span multiple pages and reach the one day mark I usually begin to forget about any audience that may exist and it becomes wholly about the points being made.

It's also sometimes difficult in discussions, to realize if or when a previously civil discussion about the actual points of contention has become needlessly personal and emotional. By that point, it's easy to feel like the effort needed to actually discuss things in private often seems like it would be fruitless.

Regardless, the discussion is finished and Schumacher's had the last word as agreed, so let's all move on from here.