Chinese Engine Development

Engineer

Engineer

Major
SamuraiBlue said:
Even with the latest J-31 maiden test flight we saw black smoke coming out of the exhaust meaning the engine was not able to maintain complete combustion.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a known "problem" with Russian engines. So much for your rants about Chinese engine issues when the engines weren't even made by Chinese.

SamuraiBlue said:
Do I need to go on?
Click to expand...
Yes, please. Do tell us about that time when Japan's P-1 had all four of its engines ceased up in mid-air. That's a sign of huge problem for all four engines to fail simultaneously.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Blackstone said:
The article is written by People's Daily, a state-controlled news organization, so of course it will say the WS-10x is good. Without a free and independent Press, we can't take such stories at face value.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know your beloved "free and independent Press" has big reputation of fabricating "WMD in Iraq" etc. etc. etc.. Their credibility is below zero, bankrupted. Give us a break and save your breath. So stop your politically charged non-sense.
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Guys ... can You STOP right that moment .. I mean immediately with this political issues ???

Deino
 
S

stibyssip

New Member
Engineer said:
That's an ad hominem fallacy. Whether a media is independent has no relevancy to the accuracy of their reports. It is a known fact that the so called "free and independent" media can be very inaccurate in their reporting.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem if we assume that the media being controlled by a specific party has no effect on the objectivity of its reporting. In this case, because the media content is centrally managed by an organization (the state) which also happens to manage the development of the WS-10, there is a clear incentive for the state media mouthpiece to be biased in favour of the state's industrial project.

For example, you would reserve doubts about the objectivity of a piece of investigative journalism about the health effects of McDonalds food if the journalism was paid for by McDonalds. It doesn't matter that someone else doing the reporting might also paint a false picture (a tabloid might have the incentive to badmouth McDonalds and make things look worse, for example), it still stands that if a party with a direct stake in your perception of a product or matter it is telling you about how good it is, you should take that testimony with a grain of salt.
 
broadsword

broadsword

Brigadier
QUOTE="stibyssip, post: 426216, member: 10704"]

For example, you would reserve doubts about the objectivity of a piece of investigative journalism about the health effects of McDonalds food if the journalism was paid for by McDonalds. It doesn't matter that someone else doing the reporting might also paint a false picture (a tabloid might have the incentive to badmouth McDonalds and make things look worse, for example), it still stands that if a party with a direct stake in your perception of a product or matter it is telling you about how good it is, you should take that testimony with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE]

AVIC is not a wholly private enterprise and the news report about its engine was not funded by AVIC.
 
broadsword

broadsword

Brigadier
stibyssip said:
Ad hominem if we assume that the media being controlled by a specific party has no effect on the objectivity of its reporting. In this case, because the media content is centrally managed by an organization (the state) which also happens to manage the development of the WS-10, there is a clear incentive for the state media mouthpiece to be biased in favour of the state's industrial project.

For example, you would reserve doubts about the objectivity of a piece of investigative journalism about the health effects of McDonalds food if the journalism was paid for by McDonalds. It doesn't matter that someone else doing the reporting might also paint a false picture (a tabloid might have the incentive to badmouth McDonalds and make things look worse, for example), it still stands that if a party with a direct stake in your perception of a product or matter it is telling you about how good it is, you should take that testimony with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Why don't you provide a list of the benefits for China if it is biased in its reporting of WS-10? That will save a lot of hassle.
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
stibyssip said:
Ad hominem if we assume that the media being controlled by a specific party has no effect on the objectivity of its reporting. In this case, because the media content is centrally managed by an organization (the state) which also happens to manage the development of the WS-10, there is a clear incentive for the state media mouthpiece to be biased in favour of the state's industrial project.

For example, you would reserve doubts about the objectivity of a piece of investigative journalism about the health effects of McDonalds food if the journalism was paid for by McDonalds. It doesn't matter that someone else doing the reporting might also paint a false picture (a tabloid might have the incentive to badmouth McDonalds and make things look worse, for example), it still stands that if a party with a direct stake in your perception of a product or matter it is telling you about how good it is, you should take that testimony with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Yes all news are bias in some form or another. What Engineer was trying to say was that Blackstone uses ad hominem fallacy to paint a picture that nothing coming out from the PRC news media are credible without any research to back his claim due to his personal vendetta against the CPC.
 
Last edited:
S

sangye

New Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Could someone tell me what is this article referring to when it says the J-20 uses the engine "99M2"? Is it the AL-31F-M2 with 145 kN of thrust?
Thanks
 
Engineer

Engineer

Major
stibyssip said:
Ad hominem if we assume that the media being controlled by a specific party has no effect on the objectivity of its reporting.
Click to expand...
It is ad hominem because someone's argument solely attacks an entity rather than an idea. This has nothing to do with neutrality.

stibyssip said:
In this case, because the media content is centrally managed by an organization (the state) which also happens to manage the development of the WS-10, there is a clear incentive for the state media mouthpiece to be biased in favour of the state's industrial project.

For example, you would reserve doubts about the objectivity of a piece of investigative journalism about the health effects of McDonalds food if the journalism was paid for by McDonalds. It doesn't matter that someone else doing the reporting might also paint a false picture (a tabloid might have the incentive to badmouth McDonalds and make things look worse, for example), it still stands that if a party with a direct stake in your perception of a product or matter it is telling you about how good it is, you should take that testimony with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
No one is disputing that China's state-media is biased, just like other media. How they are being biased is important, especially when it comes to national projects.

China's state-media is biased because they censor embarrassing information. They can tell you fact A, but hide embarrassing detail B. That does not necessary mean A is incorrect. One can go argue and explain inconsistencies in A to prove A is incorrect, and that would be fine. However, to first call names then dismiss everything from Chinese state-media as false is being lazy, and is making ad hominem.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top