Chinese Engine Development

mzyw said:

I think I have read some where the Al-31 was modified was regard to its gear box to fit the J-10 is that true? Also I think PLAAF have the foresight to fit Ws-10 in all prototype aircraft so that when large amounts of Ws-10 become available they can easily modify all the fighters to fit with Ws-10.

Click to expand...

Dizasta1 said:

Would it be safe to say that the WS-13 is intended for the JF-17 Thunder? I remember that a few months back, there was talk of JF-17 prototype-06, fitted with a Chinese engine, perhaps the WS-13, doing taxi trials. Is there any truth to this? If so, are there any pictures or videos available to verify this?

Also, is it true that the WS-13s are designed with superior performance, maintenance-wise more advance and easier to handle and would have a longer lifespan b/w servicing?

Lastly, the WS-13 Taishan is being produced by Xian Corp or someone else?

Click to expand...

tphuang said:

it was designed for it all along, although I think if they do come out with it, there is no reason for it to not be used in other platforms they maybe developing. Guizhou Liyang is the one producing WS-13.

Click to expand...

Deino said:

YES, but not from any Chinese manufactor but from Saturn itself, since the FN-version is a specificly tailor-made version of the AL-31F with the gear-box on the bottom ! A n AL-31F (with everything on top) will never fit to the J-10. As such a WS-10A - see:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- will never fit to a J-10 and a WS-10B - see here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- will never make it into a Flanker !

Deino

Click to expand...

jobjed said:

Poor grammar, hard to understand exactly what you are asking. I'm thinking two possible meanings; one, you're asking the amount of operational Flankers currently using WS-10A engines, .

Click to expand...

rhino123 said:

This is something that I could never understand. I mean, wouldn't things be easier if the designers in CAC would take an existing engine and design part of the overall system (aircraft) around this engine? That would definitely be cheaper and more economical, yes?

Unless at the time of the introduction or final stage of the design of J-10B, WS-10A was still not ready or matured enough and since J-10A was flying with an AL-31FN engine, then it would be easier for J-10B to be developed with those already available data.

In the area of my industry, we often develope something around 'buy from the shelves' components, to reduce production and development leadtime and cost, and sometime (alot of time actually) while during our designing stage we have to radically change entire internal design of our product so as to suit a component that was readily available in the market rather than going for a custom make component. with my example, I mean, even a small consumer electronic product, we go through this phases, imagine a large aircraft, wouldn't that make more sense to do it that way?

Click to expand...

MiG-29 said:

I asked how many J-10Bs have been made with WS-10s and how do you know their numbers, officially without error.

In the case of Russian Sukhois, Sukhoi it self as well as many russian sources like the Russian ministry of defence announce when a New Su-35, Su-30SM, Su-34 is deployed and built.

So pretty much you know how many Russian Sukhois are built without error.


I dislike data which is just meant to boast one self`s opinion without any real objective and accurate way of proof.


Can you give me a link of official sources, not forum calculations about how many J-10Bs are there with WS-10?


If WS-10 is indeed reliable enough to be fit on Su-27s then i can assure you it is reliable to be fit on J-10Bs.

Al-31F an AL-31FN regardless of the modification they are reliable not because are different but simply because the manufacturer has mastered all the technologies of 4th generation engines.



If WS-10 is reliable enough for large numbers of J-11Bs i guess i would be inclined to say perhaps some politics are involve on J-10B`s choice of Al-31FN.
In that sense Lion`s argument is smart.


If J-11B has very unreliable engines is unlikely there are many J-11Bs out there.

First F-14A were re-engined with new engines making for new F-14Bs, so also you can ask why SAC does not re-fit WS-10s to old Su-27s if WS-10 is so reliable.

In my opinion without official data all this discussion is a bunch of especulation.

Click to expand...

MiG-29 said:

First F-14A were re-engined with new engines making for new F-14Bs, so also you can ask why SAC does not re-fit WS-10s to old Su-27s if WS-10 is so reliable.

Click to expand...

latenlazy said:

Your question distorts the situation a bit. The J-10B hasn't entered production yet.

Also, it should be pointed out that while the WS-10A may not be unreliable for twin engined use, it can still be unreliable enough for single engined use. Single and twin engined fighters have different reliability standards for the engine. If one engine fails in the twin engined fighter there is still another engine to get it back on land. If one engine fails in the single engined fighter, that's a significantly bigger problem. The probability that two engines fail at the same time is significantly smaller than one engine failing.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

Because they can't produce enough WS-10s for both new flankers and old Su-27s, and it's not worth fitting new WS-10s to old Su-27s with little to no life on them, and WS-10's increase in performance is not significantly greater enough to warrant spending money to upgrade them?

Click to expand...