You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
COMAC C919
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
One of the two conclusions from the leehamnews article was "Commercial viability", that is totally financial and even political. When Huawei is blocked out of US and other markets, Ericsson and Nokia are commercially viable regardless how expensive they are compared with Huawei for the same feature set. This is just one of many examples.Thing is, these aren't financial analysts with no engineering acumen or first hand experience - I suggest you read up on their biographies. They've been part of this industry, and have what it takes to thoroughly analyse technical information.
Anyway, some non-paywalled details from one of their competitors:
Who in the west would care if this magazine made a mistake about COMAC? Private company has the motivation of profit and sponsorship, just like government agency politicize for budget, potayto, potahto.Apples and oranges. As a government agency, the CIA's work is liable to be politicized at the higher levels, while LNC is a private company that goes out of business if they get it wrong too regularly.
To this point, we don’t say it’s impossible for engineers to miss spec because their livelihoods are dependent on turning out good product. Plenty of companies churn out imperfect products and end up doing just fine financially.Who in the west would care if this magazine made a mistake about COMAC? Private company has the motivation of profit and sponsorship, just like government agency politicize for budget, potayto, potahto.
I wouldn't have problem with that article if it just concluded "C919 may be over weighted than its goal". The conclusion of "commercial viability" is same as a stock market reporter trying to influence the market mood. It is quite pointless as I said in post 944.To this point, we don’t say it’s impossible for engineers to miss spec because their livelihoods are dependent on turning out good product. Plenty of companies churn out imperfect products and end up doing just fine financially.
I mostly curious about the weight claim haha.I wouldn't have problem with that article if it just concluded "C919 may be over weighted than its goal". The conclusion of "commercial viability" is same as a stock market reporter trying to influence the market mood. It is quite pointless as I said in post 944.
One of the two conclusions from the leehamnews article was "Commercial viability", that is totally financial and even political. When Huawei is blocked out of US and other markets, Ericsson and Nokia are commercially viable regardless how expensive they are compared with Huawei for the same feature set. This is just one of many examples.
Of course - the commercial airline industry, like all industries, is about earning money in the end. That's why it's called "commercial", duh. Since fuel consumption accounts for up to 40% of the cost of an airline flight to the operator, a lot of technical information goes into that judgement which LNC, unlike an investment bank, have the capability to evaluate.
Who in the west would care if this magazine made a mistake about COMAC? Private company has the motivation of profit and sponsorship, just like government agency politicize for budget, potayto, potahto.
They are not a magazine. What you see on their blog is but a small part of their work - most of the money comes from airlines (or entities wanting to invest in airlines) paying them for advice. You read that right, airlines themselves and people with actual skin in the game go to LNC for analysis on decisions involving operational considerations. Do you buy a second-hand 777-300ER or a new A330-900, if your route network is heavy on belly cargo? Stuff like that. To get the answers, they have a proprietary, self-developed aircraft performance model to calculate fuel burn in various scenarios, for example.
Before making sweeping assertions, you might want to inform yourself what kind of organization you are even talking about. The point isn't that LNC or similar consultancies are infallible or clairvoyant - but if they make such statements, it's a good idea not to dismiss it out of hand.
To do accurate modeling you need to collect accurate data. So the question for me remains, where did they get their data?Of course - the commercial airline industry, like all industries, is about earning money in the end. That's why it's called "commercial", duh. Since fuel consumption accounts for up to 40% of the cost of an airline flight to the operator, a lot of technical information goes into that judgement which LNC, unlike an investment bank, have the capability to evaluate.
They are not a magazine. What you see on their blog is but a small part of their work - most of the money comes from airlines (or entities wanting to invest in airlines) paying them for advice. You read that right, airlines themselves and people with actual skin in the game go to LNC for analysis on decisions involving operational considerations. Do you buy a second-hand 777-300ER or a new A330-900, if your route network is heavy on belly cargo? Stuff like that. To get the answers, they have a proprietary, self-developed aircraft performance model to calculate fuel burn in various scenarios, for example.
Before making sweeping assertions, you might want to inform yourself what kind of organization you are even talking about. The point isn't that LNC or similar consultancies are infallible or clairvoyant - but if they make such statements, it's a good idea not to dismiss it out of hand.
Well…models can be either very carefully done works of high fidelity or sloppy blind guesstimates. The industrial consulting business has plenty of both, and “connections” is kind of, no offense, a bit of a throwaway cover for “we just have to believe in their credible authority”. So I really do think this is a case of “how they can possibly know that at all”. Lots of details of plane designs aren’t openly advertised after all. For all we know maybe they concluded the C919 is overweight for its target range because they got a real weight spec but then made some conjectural assumptions about its aerodynamic coefficients in their modeling. Without any details I don’t know why I should take their conclusions seriously over people who work on the project.I could only idly speculate, but as mentioned earlier, given their connections there are several plausible conduits. It's certainly not a case of "how can they possibly know that at all?".