China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
I don't know who is this big shrimp or big rumor monger er but I think it is stupid of them to keep harping on Shenyang liming because ANY new engine will experience teething problem. Even the fame Pratt ad Whitney F100 that powered the early J 15 and J 16. The program start in 1968 and they still encountered problem as late as 1979 If I am not wrong one or two even fall from the sky WS 10 so far we have no recorded fatality on WS 10
WS10 engine start in earnest in 1988 and didn't entered mass production in 2010. EVen F 15 experience engine less aircraft frame in their early year. It was not until F200 introduced 20 years latter that they achieved the high reliability!
If you do comparison study between F10 and WS 10, the development time, line they are comparable. And if you consider that China come from much lower industrial base and subjected to technical embargo. What they have achieved is nothing short of remarkable.
So the criticism of those shrimp or monger er is wrong and unwarranted. I notice that the mainland forummer have severe hangup and suffer from inferiority complex. Even some in this forum in their eagerness to be accepted unnecessarily play Hallelujah to the crowd of China basher
The F100 engine was first tried in service with the F-15 Eagle. The Air Force had hoped that the F100 engine would be a mature and reliable power plant by the time that the F-16 was ready to enter service. However, there were a protracted series of teething troubles with the F100 power plants of the F-15, compounded by labor problems at two of the major subcontractors. Initially, the Air Force had grossly underestimated the number of engine power cycles per sortie, since they had not realized how much the F-15 Eagle's maneuvering capabilities would result in abrupt changes in throttle setting. This caused unexpectedly high wear and tear on the engine, resulting in frequent failures of key engine components such as first-stage turbine blades. Most of these problems could be corrected by more careful maintenance and closer attention to quality control during manufacturing of engine components. Nevertheless, by the end of 1979, the Air Force was being forced to accept engineless F-15 airframes until the problems could be cleared up.
However, the most serious problem with the F100 in the F-15 was with stagnation stalling. Since the compressor blades of a jet engine are airfoil sections, they can stall if the angle at which the airflow strikes them exceeds a critical value, cutting off airflow into the combustion chamber which results in a sudden loss of thrust. Such an event is called a stagnation stall. Stagnation stalls most often occurred during high angle-of-attack maneuvers, and they usually resulted in abrupt interruptions of the flow of air through the compressor. This caused the engine core to lose speed, and the turbine to overheat. If this condition was not quickly corrected, damage to the turbine could take place or a fire could occur.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
Unlike the China military industrial complex, Pratt & Whitney didn't have sources to buy or steal cutting edge information and technology, so you would expect more problems with original design and R&D.
*Sigh* You can't plug and play these sorts of technologies. Even stolen information can only be used by engineering original designs if it's not a 100% copy.
Last edited:
Quickie
Colonel
Another way to look at it is that with the original design and full sets of R & D experimental data and the theory associated with it, they have a good starting point to work from, saving them time from having to build up the initial basic groundwork. If what you have is just a set of engineering diagrams, then you would basically have to build up a whole new set of theoretical framework and to generate the very first initial experimental data right from the scratch before you can even start progressing from there.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Typical sour grapes BS that is as inaccurate as it is superficial.
In fact, it is often ironic and hilarious how those who accuse China of copying and stealing never seem to have an original thought on the matter and only ever tend to repeat the exact same, long disproven lines that China haters copy and paste every time China makes a new breakthrough or they feel they need to score some 'points'.
Schumacher
Senior Member
This is not true, in fact, the US high tech industrial complex is the most dependent on stolen foreign talents/expertise among the major powers.
Whoever the big shrimps are, the proven ones know more about PLAAF and Chinese aviation industry than we do.
The problem is you see any possible questioning of WS-10 as an attack. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't expect reliability problems when a new engine comes out. That's all part of the process. Everyone is saying that it takes time for an engine to become reliable and mature as they are sorting out issues. This is all part of growth period in Chinese engine development. So when we say that WS-10 is not ready yet or that it hasn't reached AL-31F in flight envelope in exercises, that's simply showing where the engine is in the development process. For some reason, you take this kind of stuff peronsally and then cover yourself up by saying WS-10 is making great progress in reliability.
The P&W F100 suffered such prolonged period of teething trouble because of two factors:
1. F100's original performance target was too ambitious for the state of the art in related sciences by about 3-5 years. Therefor according to an AIAA postmortem it would have been impossible for the engine to meet all of them and still be reliable at the beginning.
2. The DOD procurement policy initially guaranteed P&W monopoly of fighter engine supply, so even after state of the art in related sciences caught up to the F-100, P&W had little incentive to solve the problems with F100.
When DOD finally decided to develope GE F101 into an alternative fighter engine, P&W found the motivation to rapidly fixed all outstanding problems with F100.
It's not clear what is the problem with WS-10. WS-10 is by all appearances not ahead of the state of the art. In fact it may be somewhat behind it. But the Chinese engine developers lack experience. This may be at the origin of the initial problems suffered by WS-10.
As to why it is taking so long to fix the issue, I wonder if the knowledge that ws-10 is the only chinese engine of its class in the pipeline and chinese government would keep pumping in money to make it work contributed to a lack of maximum motivation to fix all the problem as quickly as possible? If there is another Chinese engine roughly in its class WS-10's problems would be fixed much sooner?
1. F100's original performance target was too ambitious for the state of the art in related sciences by about 3-5 years. Therefor according to an AIAA postmortem it would have been impossible for the engine to meet all of them and still be reliable at the beginning.
2. The DOD procurement policy initially guaranteed P&W monopoly of fighter engine supply, so even after state of the art in related sciences caught up to the F-100, P&W had little incentive to solve the problems with F100.
When DOD finally decided to develope GE F101 into an alternative fighter engine, P&W found the motivation to rapidly fixed all outstanding problems with F100.
It's not clear what is the problem with WS-10. WS-10 is by all appearances not ahead of the state of the art. In fact it may be somewhat behind it. But the Chinese engine developers lack experience. This may be at the origin of the initial problems suffered by WS-10.
As to why it is taking so long to fix the issue, I wonder if the knowledge that ws-10 is the only chinese engine of its class in the pipeline and chinese government would keep pumping in money to make it work contributed to a lack of maximum motivation to fix all the problem as quickly as possible? If there is another Chinese engine roughly in its class WS-10's problems would be fixed much sooner?
- Status