Chinese Engine Development

AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
If the WS-10 had that short of a lifepsan it wouldn't be worth producing. Given lifespan is not exact, by the odds the engine could fail during its first use not due to any human errors thus would be too dangerous. Have we seen any reports of engine failures? No. I call it a lie.
 
G

getready

Senior Member
Can someone kindly explain to me the main issues china has with jet engines. I understandd it isnt about money. People here mention its not engine design either but the metallurgy behind it. So what specifically? They can't find the right material, can't process it, or lack of experts to do it?
 
broadsword

broadsword

Brigadier
AssassinsMace said:
If the WS-10 had that short of a lifepsan it wouldn't be worth producing. Given lifespan is not exact, by the odds the engine could fail during its first use not due to any human errors thus would be too dangerous. Have we seen any reports of engine failures? No. I call it a lie.
Click to expand...

That new member probably based off from his experience with some crappy China products that fail after a week of use, something that I experienced myself. Exasperating? Yes, but to compare them to jet engines is an affront.
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
The fact is someone realized the lowball number guesstimate given before is irrelevant. A 500 hour life expectancy is irrelevant if China gets to the point it can produce a lot of them. That's what? 100 trips back and forth across China? And what happened to the low number of hours Westerner experts said Chinese pilots get to train every year. That's like five years of flying before they need a new engine. It'll just cost China more which again as some have pointed is not a problem. Now it's 10 to over a 100 hours. That probably would be a problem. So since China hasn't cancelled it, it must be satisfactory enough and improvments are forseeable. 10hrs for the J-20... Who would risk that? But of course the Chinese would because anybody who isn't Western is lazy and careless. They have to make it out that failure is possible everytime it goes up in the air.
 
G

gullible

Junior Member
AssassinsMace said:
The fact is someone realized the lowball number guesstimate given before is irrelevant. A 500 hour life expectancy is irrelevant if China gets to the point it can produce a lot of them. That's what? 100 trips back and forth across China? And what happened to the low number of hours Westerner experts said Chinese pilots get to train every year. That's like five years of flying before they need a new engine. It'll just cost China more which again as some have pointed is not a problem. Now it's 10 to over a 100 hours. That probably would be a problem. So since China hasn't cancelled it, it must be satisfactory enough and improvments are forseeable. 10hrs for the J-20... Who would risk that? But of course the Chinese would because anybody who isn't Western is lazy and careless. They have to make it out that failure is possible everytime it goes up in the air.
Click to expand...
why havent j15 with ws-10a flown from carrier yet consider the engine has been with flankers for years?
 
asif iqbal

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
they probably wanted to play it down, when you fly prototypes off a carriers its not same as a production aircraft, so many people wont have the heart failures, it looks like China is learning and less media hype i guess

but sure can be the WS10 equipped J15 will have taken off carrier
 
Engineer

Engineer

Major
gullible said:
why havent j15 with ws-10a flown from carrier yet consider the engine has been with flankers for years?
Click to expand...

The J-15 with factory number 554 has WS-10 engines and has trained with the carrier.

IoR86.jpg


P8lLq.jpg


j5U2Q.jpg


Tags: 554; China; J-15; Liaoning; carrier; prototypes; touch-and-go;
 
Curious George

Curious George

New Member
getready said:
Can someone kindly explain to me the main issues china has with jet engines. I understandd it isnt about money. People here mention its not engine design either but the metallurgy behind it. So what specifically? They can't find the right material, can't process it, or lack of experts to do it?
Click to expand...

I don't know if this info is legit or not, but someone called willytan1 posted this on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
:

Here is what i know about the WS-15Turbofan engine.
The WS-15 uses the latest in engine design technology for eg: Blisks and Floating walls etc. So it is pretty much state of the art as far as the design is concerned.

It also uses China's second generation nickle based alloys in it's turbine blade construction. (The first generation was used in the WS-10A). This Alloy is lighter and stronger than the 1st generation and allows the turbine blades to be thinner,lighter,stronger and more resistant to heat. This will translate into more thrust and a longer lifespan. Also crucially a longer MTBO.

The prototype WS-15 engine already produces 16,500 kgs of thrust which is pretty good. This compares to the 14,300 kgs for the 117S and 15,300 kgs the Al-31f M3

I am pretty sure they are working on upgrades to the WS-10A which involves greater quality control which will improve the MTBO. The 2nd generation alloys may also be used to get greater thrust from the WS-10A in the future.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top