Chinese Engine Development

Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
montyp165 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, it's a long-winded answer for conjecture.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Hendrik_2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The main reason you can make a rather negative assessment of Russian engines is because the Indians happened to produce some statistical performance data on Russian engines which you are using to make your case. If you wish to advocate that Chinese engines are far superior, you need to provide some statistical performance data to support that point.

Btw, I don't think there is any aero engine expert on this forum.
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Look you are new in this forum we have been discussing this WS 10a engine for a long time The fact speak for itself there are 8 regiment and more are coming J11B That mean 400 engine and more are coming and they have been operating for years now.

Read my lip no CRASHES sofar. If that is not proof I don't know what is

For your information many of us here work in industry
BTW did you bother to read the previous post or article from JDW that China extend the life of Russian engine to 1500hr. And that is the bone of contention He said Russian service life is 3000 hr and I refute it using Indian data
 
Last edited:
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Hendrik_2000 said:
Look you are new in this forum we have been discussing this WS 10a engine for a long time The fact speak for itself there are 8 regiment and more are coming J11B That mean 400 engine and more are coming and they have been operating for years now.

Read my lip no CRASHES sofar. If that is not proof I don't know what is

For your information many of us here work in industry
Click to expand...
Give me some statistical performance numbers on Chinese engines and not circumstantial reasoning.

What exactly is meant by work in the industry?
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Hendrik_2000 said:
BTW did you bother to read the previous post or article from JDW that China extend the life of Russian engine to 1500hr. And that is the bone of contention He said Russian service life is 3000 hr and I refute it using Indian data
Click to expand...

You added this piece after my reply in which I will specifically address. The facts we know it is that the Russians clearly overpromise in their marketing and the actual results on engine service life do not stack up. We don't have to beat to death Russian engine performance because the Indians are not happy and they have performance data to show. However, claims that Chinese engines have extended MTB service by 50 % to 1500 hours are at face value claims. The fact that there are no crashes doesn't prove or establish whether this performance claim actually stack up in reality.
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Brumby said:
You added this piece after my reply in which I will specifically address. The facts we know it is that the Russians clearly overpromise in their marketing and the actual results on engine service life do not stack up. We don't have to beat to death Russian engine performance because the Indians are not happy and they have performance data to show. However, claims that Chinese engines have extended MTB service by 50 % to 1500 hours are at face value claims. The fact that there are no crashes doesn't prove or establish whether this performance claim actually stack up in reality.
Click to expand...

Again you didn't read the article It is NOT China who claim BUT JDW Reuben Johnson wrote the article in 2010 based on Russian access to the Chinese Turbofan industry.

I don't see any motive for the Russian to lie what for?. And they are the only outsider that can get access to Chinese Jet engine since they supply the part,interact and know intimately the status of Chinese industry.

Subsequently the Chinese confirm this article and You can believe whatever you want It doesn't change the fact that now China can and does improve the AL 31

The ultimate metric is the crash rate We know what is the crash rate of both WS 10A and AL 31 engine End of discussion

Here is the confirmation that china media publish
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Hendrik_2000 said:
Again you didn't read the article It is NOT China who claim BUT JDW Reuben Johnson wrote the article in 2010 based on Russian access to the Chinese Turbofan industry.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant because this wasn't my point of contention. This was :

Hendrik_2000 said:
The ultimate metric is the crash rate We know what is the crash rate of both WS 10A and AL 31 engine End of discussion
Click to expand...
How does crash rate establish conclusively whether China's engine has a longer service life? Aircraft crashes could be due to relative sampling size, maintenance issues, pilot training or flight training regimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top