I'm guessing they will accomplish this by obtaining a Boeing 767, breaking it down into nult and bolt peices, and then copying it bolt for bolt, screw for screw.
Let's hear it for Red ingenuity.
solzrules wrote: I'm guessing they will accomplish this by obtaining a Boeing 767, breaking it down into nult and bolt peices, and then copying it bolt for bolt, screw for screw. Let's hear it for Red ingenuity.
Hahahaa
I can name several Ruskie (mostly Tupolov) aircraft that are xerox copies of US planes like the B-29, Boing 727, and even our venerable Space Shuttle! Why do all that research when you can just back engineer everything?
Have fun with your trains
The Tu-4 is a documented example of reverse engineering, which isn't as easy as it may sound. There is an article in "Air & Space-Smithsonian" a few years back which described the process, and it was pretty involved.
The Tu-144 and Buran shuttle are NOT reverse engineering since they were developed at the same time as their Western counterparts. The laws of physics and aerodynamics are not constrained by ideology so aircraft that have similar performance envelopes are probably going to look similar. I would also hardly call the Concorde to be a financial success, either for its builders or its operatros.
I agree with others here that China is a long way from producing its own large jet transport. So far, they have produced a few MD80s under contract with McDonnell Douglas and are working with Airbus on A320s (both in the 120-150 passenger range). They are working on an indiginous design for a regional airliner (70-100 seats), but you can't "just hit the scale command on AutoCad" to get a bigger plane.
Didn't China go to GE for the locomotives to use on the new Tibet route? They just stopped building steam locomotives a few years ago for Pete's sake. China hasn't been known for technological innovation since spaghetti and fireworks. What they do have on their side is numbers. A billion soon-to-be middle-class consumers, (and laborers) and infinite patience. They'll just stand there and wait for the US to hand it to them after we tire of placating the short-sighted Wall Street gang.
Modelcar wrote: Will we stand by and let the Chinese take away our aircraft business too....Fair trade....From China....?? Hasn't happened...They are the ones we must be on the lookout to be running over the top of our economy as time goes on. We will continue to buy their products and draining our resourses since that will never equal out by enough buying from us....Just can't continue without causing economic problems...Major ones. Trade imbalance too lopsided.If we can't find fair trade in world markets....maybe we need to equal it out a bit by some tariffs. I know, some will scream protectionism....but we must start to do something soon to preserve some employment in this country. Our economic resourses will last just so long at the rate we're going now....
Will we stand by and let the Chinese take away our aircraft business too....Fair trade....From China....?? Hasn't happened...They are the ones we must be on the lookout to be running over the top of our economy as time goes on. We will continue to buy their products and draining our resourses since that will never equal out by enough buying from us....Just can't continue without causing economic problems...Major ones. Trade imbalance too lopsided.
If we can't find fair trade in world markets....maybe we need to equal it out a bit by some tariffs. I know, some will scream protectionism....but we must start to do something soon to preserve some employment in this country. Our economic resourses will last just so long at the rate we're going now....
Quinten:
Somewhere, I recently read that the overseas containers, after being emptied here, were stacking up[literally] at the West Coast piers and other marshalling points. It seems they[ the Chinese] can build them and fill them, and ship them over here; doing this cheaper than they can return them back for another reload, in China. I am not sure about this last, but the point is that, in the aftermath of the Hrricane season of 2005, some entrepreneurs had figured out how to create "Katrina cottages" for replacement of housing destroyed in the storms, out of them used overseas shipping containers, they were marketed pretty seriously by one of the big box building suppliers/merchandisers. Maybe, you could offer to remove the excess containers and rebuild and market them as smaller style home, a la the Levitt Builders after WWII? American enginuity, wins again...!
...Sam, believe I too have heard that container story in the recent past....and yes going back to Mr. Levitt and his Levittown's....Now that was some enterprise...! Got the job done and made homes available for thousands of Americans. Including newly married GI's. And they were affordable and the right product at the right time.
Quentin
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
You are mistaken, Dale. China most definitely desires to become a military superpower - and it probably will be in a few decades.
Dave
nanaimo73 wrote:Why shouldn't China become a leader in civilian aircraft production ? They are going to become the World's finiancial superpower, and they don't want to be a military superpower. They are only spending $40 billion on their military this year, vs $800 billion by the USA. They have at least $1 trillion in American dollars they don't want, and are recieving another $250 billion more each year.
U.S. manufacturing, including locomotives, railroad equipment, aircraft, cars, trucks, buses, off-road heavy equipment, power plant equipment, ships, lawnmowers, farm machinery, and all engineering and design will continue to accelerate its flow to China and India until their standards of living equalize with the U.S. Theirs will rise while ours will fall, but due to the difference in the size of our respective population bases, our standard of living will fall a lot further than theirs will rise.
So we get the cheapest possible products (if you don't factor in our reduced standard of living over time.)
......If we let it continue...{all our manufacturing}, go overseas we here in America will have to have the cheapest products because we won't be able to afford any other.
This transition {at our expense}, must be altered or in the future we will be the ones that will need the "aid'....!!
We can't sell our products over there because of "road blocks" they errect in our way, so let's play the same game over here before we're all down the tube...
We'll deplete all of our manufacturing base and then be beholding to whom....Our adversaries, in our time of need....And we all know how that will work. The future for us...???
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: I would also hardly call the Concorde to be a financial success, either for its builders or its operatros.
I would also hardly call the Concorde to be a financial success, either for its builders or its operatros.
Modelcar wrote: ......If we let it continue...{all our manufacturing}, go overseas we here in America will have to have the cheapest products because we won't be able to afford any other.
Don't get me wrong. When it comes to the choice between the cheapest products or a U.S. standard of living, I'm going with the standard of living.
I personally can't wait to see the Chinese transform a Honda Accord into a class I freight engine. Probably not going to need of lot of maintenance... jut run it til the wheels fall off the rails in about 15 years.
CC
....The only message I'm trying to relate is....We better start to think about our situation in this country and what we will need to do to make economics fall our way for a while...Something must change.
We spend our resources to "police" the world and the world seems to be getting "rich" off us in our world economic transactions.....Total bummer.
Chris30 wrote: I personally can't wait to see the Chinese transform a Honda Accord into a class I freight engine. Probably not going to need of lot of maintenance... jut run it til the wheels fall off the rails in about 15 years.CC
When a Chinese designed and built locomotive stalls, because of some problem with design or production flaws, it will come to a stop in a couple of miles, and wait for a mechanic. If a Chinese designed and built jumbo jet stalls, it will come to a stop in about 30,000 feet, and wait for the fire & rescue people to arrive.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Nanaimo - PRC is definately a military superpower, and don't believe the $40B public figure for 2 reasons, a) its only the public figure and does not include alot of hidden funding for reasearch etc. b) alot more of the PLA budget goes for procurement than the other countries since thier soft costs (pension, salaries, environmental concerns etc) are smaller or non-existant.
Paul - the ship at Gorkovo is specifically ID in the Russian languange plaque as the Buran. From what I've read elsewhere this was the testbed and while flown on the back of an Antonov, never flew itself. The program was never put into series production. Also at that time, the entire Soviet space programme was military, including the Buran.
Addendum
Actually, it'll be touh and go for the PRC in the next few years. There's alot of demographic forces at work and there's a good chance that significant aspects of the chinese economy could collapse of its own accord. Until then the lower labour costs and probably more shockingly lower evironmental compliance costs will continue to create a vacume that will suck 1st world jobs until the disparity diminishes.
Bucyrus wrote: Modelcar wrote: ......If we let it continue...{all our manufacturing}, go overseas we here in America will have to have the cheapest products because we won't be able to afford any other.Don't get me wrong. When it comes to the choice between the cheapest products or a U.S. standard of living, I'm going with the standard of living.
Judging by all the yuckleheads shopping at Wally World, I hate to say your in the minority.
prospekt mira wrote: Nanaimo - PRC is definately a military superpower, and don't believe the $40B public figure for 2 reasons, a) its only the public figure and does not include alot of hidden funding for reasearch etc. b) alot more of the PLA budget goes for procurement than the other countries since thier soft costs (pension, salaries, environmental concerns etc) are smaller or non-existant.Paul - the ship at Gorkovo is specifically ID in the Russian languange plaque as the Buran. From what I've read elsewhere this was the testbed and while flown on the back of an Antonov, never flew itself. The program was never put into series production. Also at that time, the entire Soviet space programme was military, including the Buran.AddendumActually, it'll be touh and go for the PRC in the next few years. There's alot of demographic forces at work and there's a good chance that significant aspects of the chinese economy could collapse of its own accord. Until then the lower labour costs and probably more shockingly lower evironmental compliance costs will continue to create a vacume that will suck 1st world jobs until the disparity diminishes.
The Buran DID fly...once, unmanned under remote control. It was launched on the Energia booster, it was a successfull flight landing safely, but the entire program was soooo expensive that it was mothballed, then an accident led to the destruction of the planned manned prototype and the entire program was scrapped, theirs rumors that the shear costs of the Buran helped in a big way to economic collapse of the Soviet system. The shell of the only remaining Buran is on display at the park mentioned above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_program
prospekt mira wrote: Nanaimo - PRC is definately a military superpower, and don't believe the $40B public figure for 2 reasons, a) its only the public figure and does not include alot of hidden funding for reasearch etc. b) alot more of the PLA budget goes for procurement than the other countries since thier soft costs (pension, salaries, environmental concerns etc) are smaller or non-existant.
What would your guess be for China's military spending this year ?
Would you have a comparable number for China's spending on transportation/infrastructure this year ?
My experience with recently constructed Dalien Works locomotives:
1. Locomotives appear to be built on a piece-work basis. Piping and wiring is arranged differently on every one. Some circuits are consolidated or missing on certain locomotives purportedly of the same manufacture and lot.
2. Locomotives are mostly hand-built.
3. Bogies are fragile and have many wearing components, and require constant maintenance. Tread and flange wear is rapid -- better put in a big supply of spare tires.
4. Cylinder liners have severe water jacket erosion problems and have replacement intervals measured in weeks especially in alkaline water conditions. Liners are heavy and wrestling them into the block down inside that cowl carbody is not fun.
5. Bogies have poor weight-transfer characteristics. Tractive effort is disappointing for their weight and horsepower.
6. Cabs and carbodies are heavy, solid, and well-constructed. Riding quality is superb.
7. Electrical system is state-of-the-art 1970. Some components such as power inverters, diodes, brushes, and contactors have high failure and wear rates. Traction motors are pretty good, though.
8. Fuel consumption per horsepower-hour is high.
9. Compared to EMD and GE-built locomotives in same service, Chinese locomotives are throwaways with lifespan of not more than 7-8 years, not worth fixing if there is even mild derailment damage such as slow-speed overturn. MLW-built locomotives in same service of circa 1970 construction are 10x better in all respects. Chinese-built locomotives are however much superior to Russian locomotives, which don't even run when they come out of the factory door and are a mess electrically.
10. Hotpad for chai pot in cab is best feature.
I have no idea if the Chinese locomotive manufacturers have the engineering and integration culture required to meet or exceed EMD and GE at any future date. Market penetration at present occurs only in closed domestic markets, as gifts to other, or payment in kind deals for crude minerals and oil for countries without cash reserves.
S. Hadid
At this point in time, China is in no position to challenge the U.S militarily and I believe utimately it knows that to do so.. would imperil their own economic stability..however that being said there is more than one way to skin a cat. Their rush to create economic colonialism in South America to bypass the U.S, is a transparent end play..lots of raw materials, and oil in particular held by Chavez, their ally will become increasingly important to us as non OPEC sources of oil will be needed to bolster reserves even if OPEC dramatically increases production rates, based on demand. That is why Mr Bush rightfully scurried off on a tour to shore up our flagging influence...it was'nt "to eat beef".. China has an advantage over us in competitive terms as it has a controlled industrial base with very deep pockets in their state run financial wherewithall thanks to our trade imbalance. The sleeping dragon awakes. Look back at what Stalin did under the same circumstances without the benefit of strong exports..they are certainly creating a industrial base...selling locomotives to us is inevitable. Look at their copyright infringements that are unenforced while U.S interests scream to no avail. Take apart a locomotive...then build one...not a problem. Whats that Frank Sinatra song...They have high hopes...oops there goes another industrial base...I found this after posting..lets see how long this lasts...manufacture in China...they will probably use GE to build a basis for their own industry..I dont see this as anything other than an interim arrangement.
GE Seeks Locomotive Co-operation with China
[WTN-L World Tibet Network News. Published by The Canada Tibet Committee. Issue ID: 2004/07/01; July 1, 2004.]
By Xie Ye (China Daily)2004-06-29
GE, the world's leading multi-industry conglomerate, is negotiating with Chinese suppliers to build locomotives in China.
The move is part of the company's long-term strategy to extend its presence in China. It thinks the country has great potential for growth and developing interest in new technology.
"The Ministry of Railways is interested in our AC diesel locomotive. So we are talking with local Chinese suppliers about how we can form partnerships to bring the technology into China," said Charlene Begley, president and CEO of GE Transportation & Rail, in an interview.
"Our view is that there will be a Chinese built locomotive in the Chinese market," said Begley.
She said the company is discussing with the ministry and potential partners such as Northern Group and Southern Group about the possibility of local production.
But discussions are at a very early stage, Begley said.
Begley flew to China last week to visit government officials and local supplier partners and also to promote its AC diesel locomotives and signals technology.
Her visit comes at a time when China's constrained rail system is suffering from serious congestion that has caused delays in the transportation of many commodities such as coal and grain since late last year. The government is eager to obtain new technology to expand the capacity of the rail system.
Begley said GE's AC diesel locomotive technology could improve the fuel efficiency and reliability of railways.
Its new technology such as Locotrol enabled locomotives to carry heavier and longer trains at faster speeds, thus increasing the capacity of the rail system.
"There are lots of opportunities for GE to work with China to help railways increase capacity and better serve the economy."
Also on the agenda of Begley's trip is the promotion of its locomotives for the Qinghai-Tibet Railway.
The railways ministry has invited tenders for 78 locomotives for the railway - which will be the longest plateau railway at the highest elevation in the world.
"We are very interested in building a locomotive for the Qinghai-Tibet Railway," said Begley.
She said that the company's experience in operating locomotives in Peru has well demonstrated its capability to provide locomotives for high-elevation plateaus.
Begley maintained that GE Rail's co-operation with China goes beyond the Qinghai-Tibet Railway.
"We are trying to build a long-term business relationship," said Begley.
"Our strategy is to bring the technology and partner with local suppliers."
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
1435mm wrote: My experience with recently constructed Dalien Works locomotives:1. Locomotives appear to be built on a piece-work basis. Piping and wiring is arranged differently on every one. Some circuits are consolidated or missing on certain locomotives purportedly of the same manufacture and lot. 2. Locomotives are mostly hand-built.3. Bogies are fragile and have many wearing components, and require constant maintenance. Tread and flange wear is rapid -- better put in a big supply of spare tires. 4. Cylinder liners have severe water jacket erosion problems and have replacement intervals measured in weeks especially in alkaline water conditions. Liners are heavy and wrestling them into the block down inside that cowl carbody is not fun. 5. Bogies have poor weight-transfer characteristics. Tractive effort is disappointing for their weight and horsepower.6. Cabs and carbodies are heavy, solid, and well-constructed. Riding quality is superb.7. Electrical system is state-of-the-art 1970. Some components such as power inverters, diodes, brushes, and contactors have high failure and wear rates. Traction motors are pretty good, though.8. Fuel consumption per horsepower-hour is high.9. Compared to EMD and GE-built locomotives in same service, Chinese locomotives are throwaways with lifespan of not more than 7-8 years, not worth fixing if there is even mild derailment damage such as slow-speed overturn. MLW-built locomotives in same service of circa 1970 construction are 10x better in all respects. Chinese-built locomotives are however much superior to Russian locomotives, which don't even run when they come out of the factory door and are a mess electrically.10. Hotpad for chai pot in cab is best feature.I have no idea if the Chinese locomotive manufacturers have the engineering and integration culture required to meet or exceed EMD and GE at any future date. Market penetration at present occurs only in closed domestic markets, as gifts to other, or payment in kind deals for crude minerals and oil for countries without cash reserves. S. Hadid
Thanks. I was hoping someone had a little more inside information regarding the current status of Chinese locomotive development. Current observations aside, what is the cost of these locomotives compared to EMD and GE locomotives? And isn't the ostensible lack of US-style technological advance just a matter of time before they catch up?
futuremodal wrote:Thanks. I was hoping someone had a little more inside information regarding the current status of Chinese locomotive development. Current observations aside, what is the cost of these locomotives compared to EMD and GE locomotives? And isn't the ostensible lack of US-style technological advance just a matter of time before they catch up?
I don't know what the cost is, but the price is whatever the Chinese government decides. Suffice it to say that EMD and GE satisfy virtually all of the diesel-electric locomotive market outside of China, Japan, Russia, and Western Europe, and in Western Europe EMD supplies the lion's share of locomotives purchased by railroad companies not in thrall to a national government. Whatever the price of the Chinese locomotive on the open market, apparently it is not low enough to gain much interest.
I wouldn't be so sure that the technology gap is easy to close. The technology isn't standing still. It's one thing to build automobiles, which have an immense national installed base that can be sheltered from foreign competition, a technology that's highly diffused, and a market in developing world countries that will accept truly awful products if the price is low enough. Locomotive technology is arcane, 75% of the market is North America, and the market in any free-market country will not accept bad products no matter what the price is. The future is difficult to predict but if historic trends continue China is unlikely to be a player any time within the next 30 years. I'm not saying China will have a competitive product 30 years from now, only that 30 years is about the least amount of time it would take them to get there if they worked very hard at it, and if GE and EMD stood still from today going forward.
1435mm wrote: futuremodal wrote: Thanks. I was hoping someone had a little more inside information regarding the current status of Chinese locomotive development. Current observations aside, what is the cost of these locomotives compared to EMD and GE locomotives? And isn't the ostensible lack of US-style technological advance just a matter of time before they catch up?I don't know what the cost is, but the price is whatever the Chinese government decides. Suffice it to say that EMD and GE satisfy virtually all of the diesel-electric locomotive market outside of China, Japan, Russia, and Western Europe, and in Western Europe EMD supplies the lion's share of locomotives purchased by railroad companies not in thrall to a national government. Whatever the price of the Chinese locomotive on the open market, apparently it is not low enough to gain much interest.I wouldn't be so sure that the technology gap is easy to close. The technology isn't standing still. It's one thing to build automobiles, which have an immense national installed base that can be sheltered from foreign competition, a technology that's highly diffused, and a market in developing world countries that will accept truly awful products if the price is low enough. Locomotive technology is arcane, 75% of the market is North America, and the market in any free-market country will not accept bad products no matter what the price is. The future is difficult to predict but if historic trends continue China is unlikely to be a player any time within the next 30 years. I'm not saying China will have a competitive product 30 years from now, only that 30 years is about the least amount of time it would take them to get there if they worked very hard at it, and if GE and EMD stood still from today going forward.S. Hadid
futuremodal wrote: Thanks. I was hoping someone had a little more inside information regarding the current status of Chinese locomotive development. Current observations aside, what is the cost of these locomotives compared to EMD and GE locomotives? And isn't the ostensible lack of US-style technological advance just a matter of time before they catch up?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.