Chinese Engine Development

Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Hyperwarp said:
Fighters using WS-10 e.i. the J-11B, J-16, are twin engined. So unless some kind of catastrophic failure in both engines occur, crashes are unlikely due to engine failure. Crashes are likely pilot error or some other systems failure. The key test for the WS-10 will be when it starts powering J-10B & J-10C. The AL-31FN has a decent track record with the PLAAF/PLAN.Will see whether the WS-10B can match-up to the AL-31FN.
Click to expand...

Sofar there are reported 8 or 9 accidents involving AL 31F. Even thought the chinese version is updated one. And you say they have decent track record ?. The Indian version has atrocious maintenance record. Engine component failure attributed to the loss of 5 Su30MKI. The idea of double engine is not prone to accident is not true
I guess the nay sayer can never get rid of their superiority feeling.

They have ordered roughly 800-900 AL31F engine. And converting existing fleet to WS 10B is just too much trouble.So they must used existing engine stock before converting to WS10B. We have seen J-10B&C with WS-10B . And so far we have not heard any new order for AL31 F engine. I retract my word when put new order for AL31 F
 
Last edited:
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
Blackstone said:
We've heard mishaps in China engine development ranging from materials issues to manufacturing processes and quality control, so my conclusion is an accident or two might have happened. But, do you trust the state-controlled news media to publish them, if the party bosses don't want it?


We agree conclusions must be evidence-based, and there are documented problems in the WS engine development process. What's left to be answered is if those problems actually led to accidents or crashes.
Click to expand...

So on the one hand, you believe all the reports (issued by the Chinese govnt) about problems with the WS-10, but refuse to believe the absence of problems with WS-10 installed on J-11B (controlled by the same Chinese govnt)?!

Evidenc is evidence, especially when issued by the same agency. You cannot subjectively accept one but reject another. You need to treat them indiscriminately.

If you want to use govnt-issued reports as evidence to argue that Chinese engines have problems, then you have to trust ALL evidence provided by the said agency. And that would include the absence of any evidence of accidents.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
vesicles said:
So on the one hand, you believe all the reports (issued by the Chinese govnt) about problems with the WS-10, but refuse to believe the absence of problems with WS-10 installed on J-11B (controlled by the same Chinese govnt)?!

Evidenc is evidence, especially when issued by the same agency. You cannot subjectively accept one but reject another. You need to treat them indiscriminately.

If you want to use govnt-issued reports as evidence to argue that Chinese engines have problems, then you have to trust ALL evidence provided by the said agency. And that would include the absence of any evidence of accidents.
Click to expand...
Both Chinese and non-Chinese sources said China had engine development problems.
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Blackstone said:
Listen bud, smart phones could document events, but not necessarily reasons for them. Ergo, WS-10 accidents are entirely possible, and the causes blamed on something else... like pilot error.
Click to expand...

Any charges or assertion without proof or documentation are by default invalid and in admissable in the court of law or public opinion.
Anything is possible so do Alien but are they probable?.

Every new engine experience teething problem see the record of PW 100-200 model they even cause 2 F16 crashes. And it take 10 yr to rectify the problem.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


But when it come to China the west and their propaganda machine make it sound like China is incompetence and can shoot straight so to speak
 
Last edited:
D

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
AVIC report: China's Taihang engine widely deployed in military
By Jiang Jie (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) 14:45, July 07, 2016

FOREIGN201607071445000168813732789.jpg

(File photo of Taihang engine)
China’s Taihang engines have become a significant, large-scale presence in the military, making China the third country in the world that has mass deployment of domestically-produced high-thrust engines for military use, according to the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) annual report.
AVIC's social responsibility report showed that the company is capable of independently conducting research and development on the next generation of high-thrust aerial engines, along with advanced drones such as Wing Loong, which have also been deployed in the military.
The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force has deployed no less than 400 Taihang engines in five air force regiments. Various types of fighter jets are equipped with the engine, including the J-11B and J-15 carrier-based fighter jets, reported China Science Communication, a news site under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. So far there have been no crashes due to engine failure among Taihang engine-equipped fighter jets, the news site also noted.
Some doubts have been voiced about the originality of the Taihang engine, as there are people who believe the Chinese-made engine is a copy of its Western counterparts. However, according to China Science Communication, the development of the Taihang engine was based on accumulated experience and technological advances gathered since 1978. The engine was also based partially on its predecessor, WS-6, which spent some 20 years in development.
Meanwhile, the engine also took inspiration from the control system of Russia's AL-31F aircraft turbofan engine, China Science Communication admitted, calling the Taihang engine a result of “independent development combined with technology from the Soviet Union and the U.S.”
“China has become the fourth country in the world to independently design and produce large transportation aircraft, as well as the third country to independently develop stealth fighter jets,” the AVIC report said, adding that China has advanced its air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles to the fourth generation.
(For the latest China news, Please follow People's Daily on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)(Editor:Jiang Jie,Bianji)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here are some proof about China's Taihang engines
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Blackstone said:
We've heard mishaps in China engine development ranging from materials issues to manufacturing processes and quality control, so my conclusion is an accident or two might have happened. But, do you trust the state-controlled news media to publish them, if the party bosses don't want it?


We agree conclusions must be evidence-based, and there are documented problems in the WS engine development process. What's left to be answered is if those problems actually led to accidents or crashes.
Click to expand...

Blackstone, you're ignoring the fact that almost all WS-10s have been equipped on SAC Flankers -- twin engine aircraft.

In other words, even if a single WS-10 failed on a J-11B or J-16 or other SAC Flanker, then it would not lead to a crash. It would require both WS-10s on the same Flanker to fail to actually make it crash.


So all the insisting that quality or manufacturing issues might have resulted in accidents with WS-10 won't change the fact that virtually all WS-10s are aboard twin engine aircraft which will need both to fail in the first place to have a WS-10 equipped aircraft crash.
If there were 400 WS-10s all equipped on single engine aircraft, then the claim that there has not been a crash would be slightly dubious, but considering they are all on twin engine aircraft, the claim is actually immensely reasonable.
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
Blackstone said:
Both Chinese and non-Chinese sources said China had engine development problems.
Click to expand...

So evidence provided by the Chinese has been corroborated by others. That means the Chinese sourses are creditable, yes? Then why don't you trust them when they have no evidence of J-11B accidents?

Once again, you need to treat your sources indiscriminately.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Bltizo said:
Blackstone, you're ignoring the fact that almost all WS-10s have been equipped on SAC Flankers -- twin engine aircraft.

In other words, even if a single WS-10 failed on a J-11B or J-16 or other SAC Flanker, then it would not lead to a crash. It would require both WS-10s on the same Flanker to fail to actually make it crash.
Click to expand...
True enough, but one engine failure on a J11/16 series test planes would qualify as "accident," right?

So all the insisting that quality or manufacturing issues might have resulted in accidents with WS-10 won't change the fact that virtually all WS-10s are aboard twin engine aircraft which will need both to fail in the first place to have a WS-10 equipped aircraft crash.
If there were 400 WS-10s all equipped on single engine aircraft, then the claim that there has not been a crash would be slightly dubious, but considering they are all on twin engine aircraft, the claim is actually immensely reasonable.
Click to expand...
Let's do a 'what if' exercise; IF there was a WS10-caused crash (yes, it means both engines would have to fail), and IF the Communist apparatchik wanted to cover it up for some ego, security, and PR reasons, the state-owned media would obey party bosses' orders and report the cause as something else, right?
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
vesicles said:
So evidence provided by the Chinese has been corroborated by others. That means the Chinese sourses are creditable, yes? Then why don't you trust them when they have no evidence of J-11B accidents?

Once again, you need to treat your sources indiscriminately.
Click to expand...
  1. I agree PRC state-owned media are at times creditable
  2. I agree no evidence of WS-10 accidents in test planes have surfaced, yet
  3. I'm not at all certain Communist apparatchik would be forthcoming on important national projects like turbofan development failures/accidents; I suspect the opposite
  4. I don't agree with your final point to treat sources indiscriminately. I say that because on balance Free Media, even with their well-documented faults and biases, are still better than state-owned media, especially on what topics they can cover. Also, my SOP is to trust my own government over the PRC, unless evidence say otherwise. Of course, caveat emptor is always the rule with any and all news outlets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top