Chinese Engine Development

Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
tphuang said:
As I said before, that article about increase life to AL-31F to 1500 hours is a propaganda piece. Nothing Chengdu did was all that impressive. There are literally hundreds of articles like that posted about Chinese aviation industry every years. As for whether or not AL-31F in service with PLAAF gets Chinese engine blades after going through the maintenance and overhaul facility in Chengdu. We know that they do, because that's what happens in these facilities. As for whether or not they intentionally send them there for the purpose of experimenting new engine blade to improve AL-31F over the original, there is no evidence that happens. These rampant speculations without source is not helpful and takes subject off topic. Please post these things in the engine thread if you have more theories, but please provide some source to support them.
Click to expand...

No that is not propaganda we have been thru this before and I refute your opinion Here is the link
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinese-engine-development.t252/page-148#ixzz2FcRb9UNf

Reuben Johson is the author of the article and he quoted some Moscow based think tank Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST). AND NOT CHINESE Later the Chinese confirm this article

Here is the article the original link is dead

Jane's Defence Weekly


China makes modifications to Russian Salyut AL-31F jet engine

Reuben F Johnson JDW Correspondent - Kiev

Key Points
The PLAAF has developed its own upgrade for the Russian-made Salyut AL-31F jet engine

The development demonstrates that the Chinese have achieved near autonomy in supporting their fighters' Russian-made engines


The Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has developed its own service life extension modifications for the Russian-made Salyut AL-31F engine, a Moscow-based defence and foreign policy think-tank has reported.

The modifications to the AL-31F/FN P.2 series engine increase its operational limits by more than 65 per cent - from 900 to 1,500 flight hours, according to the privately owned Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST).

The AL-31F engine is the powerplant for several types of aircraft in the PLAAF inventory: the Sukhoi Su-27 (which is also licence-produced at the Shenyang Aircraft Works as the J-11), the Su-30MKK and the Chengdu Aerospace Corporation J-10. The AL-31FN is a special derivative of the original AL-31F design that was developed by the Salyut plant in Moscow for a single-engine application to be fitted to the J-10.

The service life modifications were reportedly developed at the PLAAF Overhaul Plant Number 5719. The key to the service life extension is a specific set of improved, Chinese-made components that are part of what is described as a "re-manufacturing kit" that is introduced during the process of a full-scale remanufacturing and overhaul process.

The plant is located near the city of Chengdu in Sichuan province, employs 2,000 personnel and is reported to be a model of innovation within the PLAAF's network of repair plants. During the past several years the facility has initiated 63 different research and development programmes and has been awarded more than 20 state prizes for achievements in technological innovation. In the same time period, the plant's assets have more than doubled from CNY1.1 billion (USD147.2 million) in 2004 to CNY2.9 billion today.

The plant's officials credit the success of their overhaul process to a decision taken in 2004, when some of the first AL-31F engines were presented to the plant by the PLAAF for overhaul. A decision was taken, according to the Chinese news sources originally cited, to completely reorganise the overhaul process. This streamlining of the overhaul disassembly and servicing line resulted in a 27.3 per cent decrease in the time required to complete an overhaul and increased the plant's production capacity by 60 per cent.

This level of improvement in the engine's design demonstrates that the Chinese have achieved near autonomy in the support of these Russian-made engines. Russian specialists who spoke to Jane's state that this is "another example of how the technology sold to the Chinese during the 1990s has now been fully assimilated by them. It is only a matter of time before the engines that China produces will be as good as or better than anything designed here in Russia".

  • clear.png

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Hendrik_2000 said:
No that is not propaganda we have been thru this before and I refute your opinion Here is the link
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinese-engine-development.t252/page-148#ixzz2FcRb9UNf

Reuben Johson is the author of the article and he quoted some Moscow based think tank Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST). AND NOT CHINESE Later the Chinese confirm this article

Here is the article the original link is dead

Jane's Defence Weekly


China makes modifications to Russian Salyut AL-31F jet engine

Reuben F Johnson JDW Correspondent - Kiev

Key Points
The PLAAF has developed its own upgrade for the Russian-made Salyut AL-31F jet engine

The development demonstrates that the Chinese have achieved near autonomy in supporting their fighters' Russian-made engines


The Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has developed its own service life extension modifications for the Russian-made Salyut AL-31F engine, a Moscow-based defence and foreign policy think-tank has reported.

The modifications to the AL-31F/FN P.2 series engine increase its operational limits by more than 65 per cent - from 900 to 1,500 flight hours, according to the privately owned Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST).

The AL-31F engine is the powerplant for several types of aircraft in the PLAAF inventory: the Sukhoi Su-27 (which is also licence-produced at the Shenyang Aircraft Works as the J-11), the Su-30MKK and the Chengdu Aerospace Corporation J-10. The AL-31FN is a special derivative of the original AL-31F design that was developed by the Salyut plant in Moscow for a single-engine application to be fitted to the J-10.

The service life modifications were reportedly developed at the PLAAF Overhaul Plant Number 5719. The key to the service life extension is a specific set of improved, Chinese-made components that are part of what is described as a "re-manufacturing kit" that is introduced during the process of a full-scale remanufacturing and overhaul process.

The plant is located near the city of Chengdu in Sichuan province, employs 2,000 personnel and is reported to be a model of innovation within the PLAAF's network of repair plants. During the past several years the facility has initiated 63 different research and development programmes and has been awarded more than 20 state prizes for achievements in technological innovation. In the same time period, the plant's assets have more than doubled from CNY1.1 billion (USD147.2 million) in 2004 to CNY2.9 billion today.

The plant's officials credit the success of their overhaul process to a decision taken in 2004, when some of the first AL-31F engines were presented to the plant by the PLAAF for overhaul. A decision was taken, according to the Chinese news sources originally cited, to completely reorganise the overhaul process. This streamlining of the overhaul disassembly and servicing line resulted in a 27.3 per cent decrease in the time required to complete an overhaul and increased the plant's production capacity by 60 per cent.

This level of improvement in the engine's design demonstrates that the Chinese have achieved near autonomy in the support of these Russian-made engines. Russian specialists who spoke to Jane's state that this is "another example of how the technology sold to the Chinese during the 1990s has now been fully assimilated by them. It is only a matter of time before the engines that China produces will be as good as or better than anything designed here in Russia".

  • clear.png

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
believe what you want. I read the original article and this was discussed fairly long on Chinese forum. I don't see anything in this Janes article that actually refutes what I'm saying. I think it's quite clear where Chengdu is at with respect to their AL-31 MRO plant. I've written about in the past and you should actually read up on it. None of their achievement with MRO plant is anything that the Russians could not have done themselves.

The original article is from a very good source which posts tons of useful stuff every year, but it's also written to promote the achievements of different institutes working under them.

As for all this off topic stuff since. I'm deleting it. Please stay on topic.
 
Last edited:
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
GreenestGDP said:
NOTE: Unfortunately, the thread on PRC Engine development is still closed.

The source for AL-31F engine improvement story was from XinHua.
If you think XinHua * PLAAF Engines Maintenance and Overhaul Plant in ChengDu breakthrough and improvements story was all propaganda, and just pure fantasy, then you surely think Shenzhou vessels docking with Taikong 1 story was also pure propaganda and pure fantasy.

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



PLAAF Engines Maintenance and Overhaul Plant in ChengDu
Pictures were taken by XinHua almost 6 year ago, in June 2010

View attachment 24822



View attachment 24823


Were they searching for internal hairline crack ?

View attachment 24824
Click to expand...
Xinhua write pieces that are overly positive on Chinese industries all the time. The question is what does that tell us about Chengdu's plant considering that it is the most complete MRO facility for AL-31 outside of former soviet union. What we do know is that the AL-31F in Chinese service had their service life extended to 1500 hours. The question is if Saturn or Salyut put the same resource into overhauling and taking care of AL-31, how long will the service life get extended to? For example, how long are typical fighter jet engine's service life? Even for AL-31, there are plenty of website that would tell you the MTBO for AL-31 is 1000 hours and the service life of 3000 hours. And now Chengdu got the service life up to 1500 hours and we should all celebrate their achievement?
 
M

montyp165

Senior Member
tphuang said:
Xinhua write pieces that are overly positive on Chinese industries all the time. The question is what does that tell us about Chengdu's plant considering that it is the most complete MRO facility for AL-31 outside of former soviet union. What we do know is that the AL-31F in Chinese service had their service life extended to 1500 hours. The question is if Saturn or Salyut put the same resource into overhauling and taking care of AL-31, how long will the service life get extended to? For example, how long are typical fighter jet engine's service life? Even for AL-31, there are plenty of website that would tell you the MTBO for AL-31 is 1000 hours and the service life of 3000 hours. And now Chengdu got the service life up to 1500 hours and we should all celebrate their achievement?
Click to expand...

Historically Chinese have placed a greater emphasis on reliability and serviceability of equipment than the Russians have, since Chinese equipment would be expected to be in the field for longer periods of time and didn't have the luxury of having it sent back to the factory for rebuilding at regular intervals, as Chinese warfighting experience during the 20th century had indicated. This is why Chinese built equivalents of Russia equipment tended to be better built such as the Type 56 rifle and J-6 fighters, plus the Chinese experience of using western hardware reinforced that approach too. That's why for Chinese extending the MTBO to 1500 hours from 1000 hours for me is a continuation of that approach and is worthy of respect, and is in fact closer to the traditional US approach than the Russian one in terms of equipment serviceability.
 
A

Ali Qizilbash

Junior Member
Registered Member
montyp165 said:
Historically Chinese have placed a greater emphasis on reliability and serviceability of equipment than the Russians have, since Chinese equipment would be expected to be in the field for longer periods of time and didn't have the luxury of having it sent back to the factory for rebuilding at regular intervals, as Chinese warfighting experience during the 20th century had indicated. This is why Chinese built equivalents of Russia equipment tended to be better built such as the Type 56 rifle and J-6 fighters, plus the Chinese experience of using western hardware reinforced that approach too. That's why for Chinese extending the MTBO to 1500 hours from 1000 hours for me is a continuation of that approach and is worthy of respect, and is in fact closer to the traditional US approach than the Russian one in terms of equipment serviceability.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed. 50% increase in indeed substantial by any standard.
 
A

AeroEngineer

Junior Member
tphuang said:
Just to add to things from my last post, we can't just believe it in the civilian aviation business if an engine maker says it can achieve certain level of sfc.

It took P&W over 30 years to complete development in GTF and it's said to have achieved its claimed sfc. And there is a lot of improvement that will come, but issues over its software has forced delays in the a320neo delivery.

CFM international, which has many years of experience developing this size engines, are having trouble meeting their promises. They were forced to match PW GTF efficiency level, so there is a high part to meet with their leap series. Leap-1A for a320 series is said to be 2% behind expectation in sfc whereas Leap-1B for MAX series is said to be 5% behind right now. And they have to pay penalties upon delivery to the airliners for not meeting their expected efficiency until the pips come. That might cause airliners in the future to not choose CFM series, if they think PW GTF will always be maintaining an advantage of Leap series.

And that's with a company with decades of experience in this business. For China, CJ-1000A is a tremendous undertaking. It's unlikely any airliner will pick it over Leap-1C unless there is tremendous financial incentive. Outside of efficiency of the engine, airliners also have to consider the maintenance and overhaul costs. CFM international's CF-34E engine for E-175 jets are know to be subpar for their maintenance and that has been a problem for the secondary market cost of E-jets. To the point that embraer have picked PW1000G (GTF) for their next gen E2 airliners. Any Chines engine maker will have to build up a network of after sales support, maintenance and overhaul network. So even if they are close to these western companies in fuel efficiency and safety, it will be hard for any airline to pick it. So for the time being, i think the chinese high bypass engines will be mostly used by the military transports.
Click to expand...

That is ok, because the Chinese military will need at least 300 Y-20. 300 X 4 = 1200 engines plus spare ones. We are talking well over 2000 engines. This should provide Chinese engine companies enough experience to excel in the commercial field as well.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
montyp165 said:
Historically Chinese have placed a greater emphasis on reliability and serviceability of equipment than the Russians have, since Chinese equipment would be expected to be in the field for longer periods of time and didn't have the luxury of having it sent back to the factory for rebuilding at regular intervals, as Chinese warfighting experience during the 20th century had indicated.
Click to expand...
Is this conjecture or provable policy via government or military publications?
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
tphuang said:
Xinhua write pieces that are overly positive on Chinese industries all the time. The question is what does that tell us about Chengdu's plant considering that it is the most complete MRO facility for AL-31 outside of former soviet union. What we do know is that the AL-31F in Chinese service had their service life extended to 1500 hours. The question is if Saturn or Salyut put the same resource into overhauling and taking care of AL-31, how long will the service life get extended to? For example, how long are typical fighter jet engine's service life? Even for AL-31, there are plenty of website that would tell you the MTBO for AL-31 is 1000 hours and the service life of 3000 hours. And now Chengdu got the service life up to 1500 hours and we should all celebrate their achievement?
Click to expand...

Where did you get the number of 3000 hr service life.? Again your condescending view of China cloud your judgement .

Indian lost 5 Su MKI jet and China J11B has no fatal accident so far . China itself lost 9 or 10
J10A due to engine failure So the Russian engine is not getting better with time

I don't consider you expert in Aero engine So whatever you write is your personal opinion.

Here is the Indian experience dated 2015 which is only last year
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Engine failures is fast becoming a major concern for Air Force and also puts a question mark on India's ability to defend its skies. Another problem area that senior Air Force officers point out is serviceability. "Serviceability of the aircraft is about 50 per cent only," an officer said. It means at any given time, roughly half out of a fleet of 200 jets are available for operational purposes. This becomes crucial in times of emergencies like war.

Mr Parrikar said that the engines were scheduled to be overhauled after every 1000 hours of flying, but the defects started showing-up after only 500 hours of flying. The minister said that Russia-based NPO Saturn, manufacturers of Su-30 Al-31FP engines, offered to make "nine technological improvements" during overhauls, and added that after the modifications the engines were flying for upto 900 hours.
 
M

montyp165

Senior Member
Blackstone said:
Is this conjecture or provable policy via government or military publications?
Click to expand...

Books from western writers regarding specific Chinese military equipment generally indicate the superior quality of manufacture of things like the J-6 or J-11s compared to their Soviet counterparts (outside of early preproduction and production batches). The Type 56 rifle for example is noted to have a 1.5 mm thick receiver compared to the AKM 1 mm thickness, this was due to Chinese concerns about durability, reliability and performance of the thinner receiver in hard battle conditions with limited logistical support. The Type 81 rifle was born from dissatisfaction with the accuracy and range performance of the AK type rifles, while desiring a similar level of simplicity of the AK types. The thing to keep in mind is that the Chinese military has had experience using many types of equipment sourced from Germany, US and Russia, so it has had firsthand experience of having to troubleshoot said equipment as it breaks down, as well as their engineering philosophy. This is also why the PRC has since the late 70's/early 80's preferentially listened to American statistical quality control systems like Six Sigma in design and manufacturing much like the Japanese did postwar compared to Soviet production techniques.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top