PRC high bypass engine, turboprop, turboshaft, and other aeroengines

Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Old thread here:

Chinese Engine Development

I'm going to create two new threads separate from this one, to continue our future engine discussions, and will lock this for now.
www.sinodefenceforum.com


Thread for VCEs and low bypass engines and engines for tactical aircraft in this thread:

PRC VCE+low bypass engine thread (fighters, tactical jets)

Old thread here: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/chinese-engine-development.252/page-1016#post-1306607 Thread for high bypass engines, turboprops, tubroshafts here:
www.sinodefenceforum.com

This thread will be primarily for engines which are not oriented around applications for fighter aircraft or tactical aircraft. A few examples (not exhaustive) of those are:
- WS-10, WS-15, WS-13, WS-21, WS-19, WS-9, etc...
- VCE/ACE efforts for future fighters
- Engines for various trainers
- Likely engines for H-20 and GJ-X and WZ-X etc


This thread, is therefore for aero engines that do not fit in the above category.
-High bypass engines, those like WS-20, CJ-1000A, CJ-2000 etc (most future engines for commercial airliners should be discussed in this thread)
-Turboprop engines
-Turboshaft engines (i.e.: for helicopters)
-Novel and wacky aeroengine solutions (electric, solar driven etc)
-Small propulsion units


If you're wondering if an engine is "high bypass" or "low bypass," I advise to just use some common sense. If something looks like it'll fit on a modern airliner, then it's probably high bypass and is suitable for this thread.
 
Last edited:
Deino

Deino

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
Old thread here:

Chinese Engine Development

I'm going to create two new threads separate from this one, to continue our future engine discussions, and will lock this for now.
www.sinodefenceforum.com


Thread for VCEs and low bypass engines and engines for tactical aircraft in this thread:

PRC VCE+low bypass engine thread (fighters, tactical jets)

Old thread here: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/chinese-engine-development.252/page-1016#post-1306607 Thread for high bypass engines, turboprops, tubroshafts here:
www.sinodefenceforum.com

This thread will be primarily for engines which are not oriented around applications for fighter aircraft or tactical aircraft. A few examples (not exhaustive) of those are:
- WS-10, WS-15, WS-13, WS-21, WS-19, WS-9, etc...
- VCE/ACE efforts for future fighters
- Engines for various trainers
- Likely engines for H-20 and GJ-X and WZ-X etc


This thread, is therefore for aero engines that do not fit in the above category.
-High bypass engines, those like WS-20, CJ-1000A, CJ-2000 etc (most future engines for commercial airliners should be discussed in this thread)
-Turboprop engines
-Turboshaft engines (i.e.: for helicopters)
-Novel and wacky aeroengine solutions (electric, solar driven etc)
-Small propulsion units


If you're wondering if an engine is "high bypass" or "low bypass," I advise to just use some common sense. If something looks like it'll fit on a modern airliner, then it's probably high bypass and is suitable for this thread.
Click to expand...


Just a minor idea or question? As much as I appreciate the new threads especially the division between "high bypass" and "low bypass" but does it really make sense to put high-bypass engines in the same thread together with turbopros, turboshafts and other "small sized" stuff?

Maybe we should divide it once more into three threads first for "high bypass", second for "low bypass" and a third one for "any props and small stuff"?

Just my two cents!
 
L

lafsotp

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
This thread will be primarily for engines which are not oriented around applications for fighter aircraft or tactical aircraft. A few examples (not exhaustive) of those are:
- WS-10, WS-15, WS-13, WS-21, WS-19, WS-9, etc...
- VCE/ACE efforts for future fighters
- Engines for various trainers
- Likely engines for H-20 and GJ-X and WZ-X etc
Click to expand...
Blitzo, I think you added the word "not" by mistake in the first line here.

EDIT: Oops, now I see what you intended to say. Please delete.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Deino said:
Just a minor idea or question? As much as I appreciate the new threads especially the division between "high bypass" and "low bypass" but does it really make sense to put high-bypass engines in the same thread together with turbopros, turboshafts and other "small sized" stuff?

Maybe we should divide it once more into three threads first for "high bypass", second for "low bypass" and a third one for "any props and small stuff"?

Just my two cents!
Click to expand...

Agreed.

High bypass turbofan engines and low bypass turbofan engines (+ potential medium bypass engines for the H-20, GJ-X and WZ-X + VCE/ACE/RDE/TRBCC-type engines etc) should belong to their respective threads.

Meanwhile, piston engines, turboprops and turboshafts (+ potential turbojets for small-sized vehicle/drone/missile applications) should collectively be put in one thread that is separate from the turbofan threads.

In the meantime - Where does the propfan engines belong?
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Deino said:
Just a minor idea or question? As much as I appreciate the new threads especially the division between "high bypass" and "low bypass" but does it really make sense to put high-bypass engines in the same thread together with turbopros, turboshafts and other "small sized" stuff?

Maybe we should divide it once more into three threads first for "high bypass", second for "low bypass" and a third one for "any props and small stuff"?

Just my two cents!
Click to expand...

I think three threads is a bit too unwieldy.
I'm not inherently opposed to it, but imo based on the breakdown of discussions/content for engine matters in the prior thread, I would say 50-60% of posts over the years has been about low bypass engines and engines for fighter aircraft (WS-10, 15, 13, 19, 21, 17, VCEs etc).

While the rest of the 40-50% of other posts variously about the "other" or "non-fighter aircraft engines" inclusive of things like high bypass engines (WS-20, CJ-1000A, CJ-2000), turboprops, turboshafts, and weird engines.


The goal isn't to divide threads accurately by topic, but rather to acknowledge:
"Okay, all fighter and tactical aircraft related engine talks go in one thread, and everything else not related to fighter aircraft related engine talks goes into a different thread".

ACuriousPLAFan said:
Agreed.

High bypass turbofan engines and low bypass turbofan engines (+ potential medium bypass engines for the H-20, GJ-X and WZ-X + VCE/ACE/RDE/TRBCC-type engines etc) should belong to their respective threads.

Meanwhile, piston engines, turboprops and turboshafts (+ potential turbojets for small-sized vehicle/drone/missile applications) should collectively be put in one thread that is separate from the turbofan threads.
Click to expand...

I understand the desire for that, but the reason why I've kept it at two, is so we will not have way too many threads for engines.
If that's what everyone wants, then I'm open to the idea of changing it, but the division I've chosen is similar to how the UAV thread was divided into two different threads a year or so ago:
-One for high end UCAVs, CCAs, flying wings etc
-One for everything else (MALE, HALE, suicide, small, FPV)

People argued that perhaps some of the UAVs in the second thread should deserve its own thread, and in terms of academic discussion I would agree but in terms of clogging up the forum with additional "UAV related threads" it becomes unwieldy, and it has worked so far it seems, because it's reflected the reality of interest that people have in the main UAV related topics.

Foe engines similarly, the division is practically:
-One for engines used on fighter aircraft, tactical aircraft, or other military aircraft that don't need external engine nacelles (inclusive of whatever is used for GJ-X, WZ-X, H-20 etc)
-One for everything else (commercial jet engines which are invariably high bypass, turboprops and variations of it, turboshafts, exotic and new propulsion systems, and very small jets for missiles etc)

If we accept that much of the discussion in the prior engine thread was for lower bypass engines (for fighters, high end UCAVs, and H-20) inclusive VCEs and so-called "medium bypass engines" meant to be mounted internally in an aircraft like H-20, WZ-X, GJ-X), I think keeping all of those engines together in a thread means at least everyone knows what they're looking for.
Meanwhile, "everything else" which is not in that group, can be shoved off into its own thread (this one).


ACuriousPLAFan said:
In the meantime - Where does the propfan engines belong?
Click to expand...

Propfan engines would be in this thread, because it isn't an engine that could be utilized on a fighter or tactical aircraft or mounted in an integral manner to an aircraft's fuselage.

I.e. it's in the "everything else" group.
 
Last edited:
Wrought

Wrought

Captain
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
The goal isn't to divide threads accurately by topic, but rather to acknowledge:
"Okay, all fighter and tactical aircraft related engine talks go in one thread, and everything else not related to fighter aircraft related engine talks goes into a different thread".
Click to expand...

In that case, wouldn't the obvious solution be naming the threads by the intended division? As in, threads explicitly named "Fighter engines" and "Non-fighter engines" instead of phrasing it technically (but in a technically counterintuitive way)?

That is to say, if the logic for dividing threads is not technical, then the names should reflect that.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Wrought said:
In that case, wouldn't the obvious solution be naming the threads by the intended division? As in, threads explicitly named "Fighter engines" and "Non-fighter engines" instead of phrasing it technically (but in a technically counterintuitive way)?

That is to say, if the logic for dividing threads is not technical, then the names should reflect that.
Click to expand...

That part of my reply and overall post was directed towards the idea of dividing the engine thread into three (as opposed two)

The primary rationale for why it was divided into the specific two seen, is still technical in nature.
I.e.: lower bypass engines (including variations, such as VCEs and so-called "medium bypass" engines) in one thread, and everything else in another.

I considered naming them based on the aircraft they are intended for, but then the thread title becomes more focused on the destination aircraft rather than the engine types whose technical features mean they can be utilized on a given aircraft type or not.

More importantly, it is already intuitive enough for people identify "low bypass engine" = fighter, tactical UAV, and stealthy bomber, applications while "high bypass engine, turboprop, turboshafts" = commercial airliners, transports, helicopters.... and if a reader didn't know it, then it means they've been able to learn one of the more basic associations between aeroengines and roles.

For the few grey area applications that may emerge, those can be dealt with on an ongoing basis as they emerge, but imo this captures the vast majority of the aeroengine topics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top