Chinese Engine Development

tphuang said:

Chinese companies use Western engines for airliners because domestic engines are not good enough for a various reasons. Please actually read up on modern aeroengine and the challenges of reaching the expected sfc. Aside from efficiency requirements, there are also safety and noise requirements that engine has to reach in order to be certified with FAA and EASA. If you just look at how much trouble the Russians have in developing a domestic alternative to GTF, it should show how difficult it is to crack this industry.

Click to expand...

Do you believe the claim China's jet engine industry is less than 10 years behind US?

tidalwave said:

yeah right, FAA for alot of the plane usage in those third world countries internally.

What turboprop engines China has besides license production?

My point is you can't call yourself self sufficient when you have nothing in civilian sector.

Russia is self sufficient because it makes everything from a to z for both military and civilian China is not. China needs another 20 yrs to catch up to that level

Click to expand...

Russia is not self sufficient, not even the USA.

All nations have foreign suppliers, Russia has Ukraine and the USA a myriad of countries.

Russia has Ukrainian suppliers for engines and engine parts, they are trying to replace them with local equipment but it is not easy

tphuang said:

Chinese companies use Western engines for airliners because domestic engines are not good enough for a various reasons. Please actually read up on modern aeroengine and the challenges of reaching the expected sfc. Aside from efficiency requirements, there are also safety and noise requirements that engine has to reach in order to be certified with FAA and EASA. If you just look at how much trouble the Russians have in developing a domestic alternative to GTF, it should show how difficult it is to crack this industry.

Click to expand...

Russia has a very different industry history from China, to start Russia inherited most of the engine brands the Soviet Union had.

To mention the Russians built Tu-104, Tu-124, Tu-134s, Tu-154s. Il-62s, Il-86./96s all of them have Russian/Soviet engines
For example the PS-90 is used on operational Tu-214s, China has no equivalent to that engine

The PD-14 is an engine to be equivalent to the best of the West


The difference between China and Russia stems Russia started from a very advanced industry but without no Money to develop and bring to operational capability those projects this delayed their engine and aviation industry. but in terms of technical level, Russia is not behind the West


China is different it has the money but it has not the experience

b787 said:

Russia has a very different industry history from China, to start Russia inherited most of the engine brands the Soviet Union had.

To mention the Russians built Tu-104, Tu-124, Tu-134s, Tu-154s. Il-62s, Il-86./96s all of them have Russian/Soviet engines
For example the PS-90 is used on operational Tu-214s, China has no equivalent to that engine

The PD-14 is an engine to be equivalent to the best of the West

The difference between China and Russia stems Russia started from a very advanced industry but without no Money to develop and bring to operational capability those projects this delayed their engine and aviation industry. but in terms of technical level, Russia is not behind the West

Click to expand...

b787, do non-Chinese jet engine experts really believe China is only about 10 years behind the US? What projects do Chinese engine companies have that can rival something like the GE90-115B and the upcoming GE9X?

Blackstone said:

b787, do non-Chinese jet engine experts really believe China is only about 10 years behind the US? What projects do Chinese engine companies have that can rival something like the GE90-115B and the upcoming GE9X?

Click to expand...

i do not think so, all nations have PR statements, the US has a myriad of engines, just consider B-747, B-787, DC-10, Learjets, Gulfstream aircraft, etc etc etc, the F-35 has an engine of 19 tonnes.

General Electric CF6

TF-39 Engine
In my opinion the Chinese are 15-20 years from the US in military engines, the Russians are 6-10 years away from the Americans.

In civil engines, China is at no moment near the US, why? have you seen a Chinese engine on a B-777 type aircraft?

GE9X
The Russians are also behind the USA, Russia is now in the 14 tonnes class engines with PD-14 but they lack any engine in the class of the Trent.
Ukraine has a engine n the 18 tonnes class for the An-124, the D-18T, but is much much older than the Trent.

Blackstone said:

Do you believe the claim China's jet engine industry is less than 10 years behind US?

Click to expand...

Unless you believe that PRC is forerunner of every industry in high technology it would be difficult to claim PRC is at par with western counter parts.
For example, like I posted in the ATD-X thread Japan is the forerunner in material science especially in industrial ceramic composite and carbon composite materials.
PRC is at least 10 years behind in this certain field of expertise.
Western nations can benefit from these expertise like siegecrossbow suggests.
I believe the next generation engines which will require to handle even more higher temperature, electro-magnetic encasement and plasma actuator technology which would probably become the center of focus which will broadens the required field of expertise even further.

b787 said:

The Russians are also behind the USA, Russia is now in the 14 tonnes class engines with PD-14 but they lack any engine in the class of the Trent.

Click to expand...

The size of the engine is mostly unrelated to the level of technology it embodies.

At the point when China can produce an engine of any size that matches or exceeds the best western equivalent, then China has achieved parity with the west. The fact that the west has dozens of different engines across the size/thrust/configuration range at that level of technology while China for the moment only has one is of little significance. They can develop more models when there is a market or application for them.

SamuraiBlue said:

I believe the next generation engines which will require to handle even more higher temperature, electro-magnetic encasement and plasma actuator technology which would probably become the center of focus which will broadens the required field of expertise even further

Click to expand...

Such discontinuities offer China the best opportunity to catch up.

The most difficult fields for China to catch up in are those that are product of successive generations of iterative refinement -- automobile engines, turbofans, submarines are all good examples of this. By way of contrast, China can adopt "disruptive" technologies almost as fast as the west. The contemporary development of unmanned drone aircraft -- a field in which China is relatively competitive with the west and arguably second only to USA -- is an example of this. When you shake things up, the institutional advantages accumulated by the leading players are reduced or dissipate entirely.

Lethe said:

Such discontinuities offer China the best opportunity to catch up.

The most difficult fields for China to catch up in are those that are product of successive generations of iterative refinement -- automobile engines, turbofans, submarines are all good examples of this. By way of contrast, China can adopt "disruptive" technologies almost as fast as the west. The contemporary development of unmanned drone aircraft -- a field in which China is relatively competitive with the west and arguably second only to USA -- is an example of this. When you shake things up, the institutional advantages accumulated by the leading players are reduced or dissipate entirely.

Click to expand...

That depends on how much fundamental research had been placed into that technology and how much know-how had been accumulated.
Basically Electro-magnetic encasement is done by most all advance nations through collaboration in nuclear fusion reactor development but again it requires advance knowledge in material science in manufacturing high temperature super conductive material that is not fragile.
As for plasma actuator technology, although there probably are many nations that are doing research I only know about Japan's case doing research on this subject.

b787 said:

i do not think so, all nations have PR statements, the US has a myriad of engines, just consider B-747, B-787, DC-10, Learjets, Gulfstream aircraft, etc etc etc, the F-35 has an engine of 19 tonnes.

General Electric CF6

TF-39 Engine

In my opinion the Chinese are 15-20 years from the US in military engines, the Russians are 6-10 years away from the Americans.

In civil engines, China is at no moment near the US, why? have you seen a Chinese engine on a B-777 type aircraft?

GE9X

The Russians are also behind the USA, Russia is now in the 14 tonnes class engines with PD-14 but they lack any engine in the class of the Trent.
Ukraine has a engine n the 18 tonnes class for the An-124, the D-18T, but is much much older than the Trent.

Click to expand...

I would not take what he said to mean that China's engine technology, as an average of all types, is within 10 years of the US; they were specifically discussing fighter jet turbofans. I think he's saying that China's best fighter turbofan is within 10 years of America's best fighter turbofan. So if China's WS-15 is completed by 2020 at a target thrust of 180-185kN and China has 5 years to improve it (like the WS-10 was improved from 120-140kN in a few short years), then by 2025, what type of engine are we looking at? 200kN? A little more/less? The US has the F-135 at 191kN now. What do we expect out of it by 2025? Then there's comparing thrust-to-weight, reliability, longevity, overhaul time, fuel consumption, air intake requirement, stealth, etc... So addressing these questions would probably be closer to answering whether the spokesman's claim was realistic as opposed to comparing ALL engine types across the board.