Chinese Engine Development

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Thanks ... ...
From the Hangzhou Sha Chang Air Force technical expert ... ...

Sorry, I did not bookmark the video.

Maybe this link:
That one's interesting, but it did not say that further J-10 were being optimized to WS-10A. It did, however, say that J-11D is China's most advanced non-stealth fighter (more advanced than J-10C) and that other than the airframe, it's on technological parity with J-20!
 

GreenestGDP

Junior Member
RE: DSI Aerodynamic inner structure and Center of Gravity
of J-10C being optimized for different engine ... ...

*** Have you watched the video from start to finish ??

I will post the link ... if I find the video

Meanwhile maybe, ...it was explained inside one of these links:


1)

2)
 

Schumacher

Senior Member
Judging from all your posts, we all know for some unknown personal experience, you are anti Russian to the point of Sacrificing--PRC
national interest and you are being illogical and shallow minded with respect to things related to Russia.

Are you willing to declare in this forum that you are willing to ride the American Boeing and Euro Airbus jets that have their engines hit by BIRDS ??
Hmm ....... after causing multiple J10 crashes, being panned by official IAF report & we haven't even looked at the experiences of other AL31 users, if all you can see of criticisms of AL31 & calling for faster adoption of WS10 by J10 as caused by some anti Russian sentiment, it seems you're seriously confusing PRC national interest with that of Russia. Please don't mention PRC national interest lightly again until you're clear about the meaning.

You asked a strange question, suggesting you're not clear yet about the issues being discussed. No one of sound mind would want to be on any jet hit by any birds. But if I were to be unfortunate enough to be on a jet hit by birds, I pray it's either a Boeing/Airbus instead of a Russian jet, in fact I'll try my best never to step into a Russian jet in the first place and you can bet it's the same with most travelers world wide.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Hmm ....... after causing multiple J10 crashes, being panned by official IAF report & we haven't even looked at the experiences of other AL31 users, if all you can see of criticisms of AL31 & calling for faster adoption of WS10 by J10 as caused by some anti Russian sentiment, it seems you're seriously confusing PRC national interest with that of Russia. Please don't mention PRC national interest lightly again until you're clear about the meaning.

You asked a strange question, suggesting you're not clear yet about the issues being discussed. No one of sound mind would want to be on any jet hit by any birds. But if I were to be unfortunate enough to be on a jet hit by birds, I pray it's either a Boeing/Airbus instead of a Russian jet, in fact I'll try my best never to step into a Russian jet in the first place and you can bet it's the same with most travelers world wide.
Keeping this civil; let's see how it goes...

I assure you, every effort is being made by China to expedite widespread use of the TaiHang engines. No country, especially not China, enjoys being dependent on a foreign military technology to keep their jets flying. But calling for them to go even faster, especially when basically everything about the TaiHang engines is classified, is reckless. The people who design and improve China's engines everyday decide how fast to integrate it into China's operational forces based on how comfortable they feel about its reliability. We've seen the least confident state, when they were confident enough only to fly it in tandem with a Russian engine. Then, as the confidence and quality rose, they were willing to use 2 TaiHangs to power a Flanker. Now, as the quality and experience with the engine improves even more, we are slowly and cautiously entering a phase of greater confidence, where a single Taihang is the lone power-plant on an expensive J-10B/C fighter. This speed of integration cannot be rushed, for national interest. If it is rushed because you hate Russian technology, and TaiHangs substitute AL-31's before they are ready, we could see many more crashes. This being China's first operational turbofan, even a few crashes can have a crippling effect on morale and give massive ammunition to those who want to see China never surmount its final and most challenging obstacle of engines. "Chinese engines miss the finish line: J-10C powered by WS-10A, the pride of China, crashes and burns in its first month of operation. Copy Cats never win!" That's what a Western headline would look like at the first sign of trouble in a Taihang. That is why the program is moving at the rate it is moving, not at the rate that you want to see.

Even with all this precaution, I am nervous and will always have my fingers crossed at how well the first regiment of TaiHang-powered J-10B/C will do and dread the inevitable first time when a WS-10A crashes. Alas, the only way to avoid it is to never make one. I simply hope that it happens long after the WS-10A has established an excellent record as a single power-plant.
 
Last edited:

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
This debate is getting rather tiresome...:confused:

If you don't like it the don't read it it is as simple as that As long as they keep it civil conversation and not overdrawn then let it be

I find it very annoying that the moderator keep deleting post that is not to their liking or doesn't conform to their prejudice or weltanschaung. This forum is become the sounding board of and ideology exactly what they accused some of us in here. At least Popeye is even handed! and only act when it become nuisance by deleting ALL the post not only certain post that is not to their liking Here is the catch "China can't make good engine and has to rely on the Russian"
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

Brigadier
Here is the catch "China can't make good engine and has to rely on the Russian"
Truth is good defense; China's turbofan engines don't even measure up to Russian standards, let alone US/Western ones. Raving against it doesn't make it go away. Until China learns to mass produce world-class engines, the criticism is valid.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Truth is good defense; China's turbofan engines don't even measure up to Russian standards, let alone US/Western ones. Raving against it doesn't make it go away. Until China learns to mass produce world-class engines, the criticism is valid.

There are 400 copies of WS 10 A flying around with no incident or accident in the record that is PROOF more than China basher can take

Now we are seeing they prepared to install it on single engine China come late in jet engine development No developing country has achieved what China has done compressing 70 years of Engine development in 30 years all the while surviving political upheaval,embargo, low budget. Remember China only spend 2% of GDP for military the lowest of all major country
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Lieutenant General
There are 400 copies of WS 10 A flying around with no incident or accident in the record that is PROOF more than China basher can take

Um careful. There has been no crashes involving WS10A. However the WS10A has been in service exclusively with twin engined fighters, so it's entirely possible that there have been engine issues with it, but that it did not cause a crash because the other engine remained operational.

Realistically speaking, I would be amazed if they had that many engines flying for that amount of time and never had a single serious engine problem, since that would make the WS10A hands down the most reliable military jet engine ever made.

The fact that the WS10A is now being fielded in single engined J10s is proof that the PLAAF has great trust in its reliability. However, we cannot really conclude how that reliability compares to other engines without more data.

It may well be, and I even expect the WS10A to be more reliable and longer lasting then the AL31. However, we just don't have enough proof to conclusively say so just yet.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Um careful. There has been no crashes involving WS10A. However the WS10A has been in service exclusively with twin engined fighters, so it's entirely possible that there have been engine issues with it, but that it did not cause a crash because the other engine remained operational.

Realistically speaking, I would be amazed if they had that many engines flying for that amount of time and never had a single serious engine problem, since that would make the WS10A hands down the most reliable military jet engine ever made.

The fact that the WS10A is now being fielded in single engined J10s is proof that the PLAAF has great trust in its reliability. However, we cannot really conclude how that reliability compares to other engines without more data.

It may well be, and I even expect the WS10A to be more reliable and longer lasting then the AL31. However, we just don't have enough proof to conclusively say so just yet.

Everybody can second guessing there is incident or accident on WS 10A But the onus on you to prove it or cite resource that confirm it . Conspiracy theory is is dozen a dime .

Don't bring the early teething problem with spooler etc that is water under the bridge.

What do you mean we don't have data We have data for the MTBO of AL 31 and we know it is 900 hr The Sichuan depot manage to increase the MTBO to 1500hr That should show that that they have technology to improve the reliability of Turbo engine

The record speak for itself NO ACCIDENT! Whereas we know at least 10 or 12 fatal or near fatal accident involving AL 31
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Truth is good defense; China's turbofan engines don't even measure up to Russian standards, let alone US/Western ones. Raving against it doesn't make it go away. Until China learns to mass produce world-class engines, the criticism is valid.
Truth is indeed good defense. Which is why the criticism should be considered, but shouldn't so confidently stated as *valid*. The truth is we don't really know the truth, transparency issues, et al. We've heard claims of Chinese engine reliability cutting both ways, and, given that time isn't static and developments are always evolving, we have no way of situating those claims in an appropriate chronological context.
 
Top