4 ms·
> Maybe this article was purposefully released to spread lies and defame COMAC’s reputation? I don't think so. I would guess 90+% of the people clicking on th
by JackFr 7y ago
> Maybe this article was purposefully released to spread lies and defame COMAC’s reputation?
I don't think so. I would guess 90+% of the people clicking on this had no idea what COMAC is. What does seem weird is that the HN headline "Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines" does support defaming COMAC narrative, while the actual Reuter's headline
"China's bid to challenge Boeing and Airbus falters" reads like the dozens of articles that were written about delays the Dreamliner [1] and the A380 [2]. Compared to some of those articles COMAC is getting off easy.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+787+dreamliner+delays https://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+787+dreamliner+delays
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=airbus+a380+delays https://www.google.com/search?q=airbus+a380+delays
- inferiorhuman 7y agoWhat does seem weird is that the HN headline "Comac engineers miscalculated the forces that would be placed on the engines" does support defaming COMAC narrative, while the actual Reuter's headline "China's bid to challenge Boeing and Airbus falters" I picked that because having to redo the nacelles was new news to me. Most of the rest of the article covers previously published problems. FWIW the 787 was hardly treated with kid gloves. It wasn't just random delays, it was things like hamfisted outsourcing, scrapping frames assembled with hardware from Home Depot, major customers refusing to take delivery from a specific factory, battery fires, and major engine problems.