"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".
